Eternal Gender: Biology at Birth?

[HappyJackWagon]

President Oaks has made the statement that gender is defined as "biological sex at birth" and reiterated that "binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation".

From a policy standpoint I can understand how/why he might make a statement like this but it makes me wonder if he is stating what he believes is an eternal truth received by revelation, or simply as a functional, operational definition currently being used by the church. Not only is "biological sex at birth" sometimes unclear or even contradictory (chromosomes versus organ), but the statement doesn't seem to take into account the vast variability of human biology.

I don't claim to understand how biology and gender identification works for all people so I find it challenging to believe that Pres. Oaks would have it all figured out. I think he's sharing his personal opinion but doing it with the mantle of First Presidency/Apostle behind him. In any case, the bold claim sure seems to be hurtful to many in the transgender community. IF the church is trying to reach out to the community, making bold proclamations about things they couldn't possibly know, isn't going to help matters.

Question-  Is perceptible biological sex at birth a person's eternal gender, or should the church and leaders be more open to variability of life and biological experience?

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10/02/dark-day-transgender/?fbclid=IwAR1bG0KT8eYLqOwUL0FROoQ5eVRjuJeK_uauO2tcNbFDq_guuc6rv-4PhSA

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

President Oaks has made the statement that gender is defined as "biological sex at birth" and reiterated that "binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation".

From a policy standpoint I can understand how/why he might make a statement like this but it makes me wonder if he is stating what he believes is an eternal truth received by revelation, or simply as a functional, operational definition currently being used by the church. Not only is "biological sex at birth" sometimes unclear or even contradictory (chromosomes versus organ), but the statement doesn't seem to take into account the vast variability of human biology.

I don't claim to understand how biology and gender identification works for all people so I find it challenging to believe that Pres. Oaks would have it all figured out. I think he's sharing his personal opinion but doing it with the mantle of First Presidency/Apostle behind him. In any case, the bold claim sure seems to be hurtful to many in the transgender community. IF the church is trying to reach out to the community, making bold proclamations about things they couldn't possibly know, isn't going to help matters.

Question-  Is perceptible biological sex at birth a person's eternal gender, or should the church and leaders be more open to variability of life and biological experience?

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10/02/dark-day-transgender/?fbclid=IwAR1bG0KT8eYLqOwUL0FROoQ5eVRjuJeK_uauO2tcNbFDq_guuc6rv-4PhSA

This article (as opposed to an opinion piece) may offer more context: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-first-presidency-leadership-session?cid=HP_NWSRM_10_2_19

He says, “binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.” So whatever confounding of the ideal that develops after the post-Creation Fall will be restored to the original proper binary order and proper and perfect frame (Alma). So I think  "biological sex at birth" refers to the ideal order of the finished plan and not to the various departures that we see occurring in mortal life.

RE: reaching out to the community and openness to variability of life and biological experience:

“When counseling with any members experiencing challenges related to their sexual orientation, Church leaders should affirm that God loves all His children, including those dealing with confusion about their sexual identity or other LGBT feelings,” President Oaks said. “Such members and their families have unique challenges. They should be offered hope and be ministered to as directed by the Spirit according to their true needs, remembering the admonition of Alma to mourn with those that mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort (see Mosiah 18:9).”

“Because we love God and understand His great plan of salvation and the significance of His commandments, we manifest our love for our neighbors by helping them come unto Christ, repent, and keep His commandments. This is part of bearing one another’s burdens that they may be light.”

Edited October 3, 2019 by CV75

[Maestrophil]

My initial thought is that, while there are exceptions to most everything, the overwhelming majority usually defines what is regular or 'normal'. So in answer to your question - they can be open in terms of sympathy and empathy without having to concede that transgenderism is 'normal' or in accordance to God's eternal plans.  

In other words, humans all have 5 digits on each hand.  That could be made as a universal statement that could be defended as true - to say 'most' are born that way does not illustrate how common it is - it is the standard.  Of course some are born with less, or none, or more - but those are exceptions due to biological irregularities, which I believe God allows to happen because creation is running on its own agency after having been initiated by Him initially. 

Similarly, what if God created the process, as a rule, so that biological birth sex represents eternal gender, with the caveat that errors in the process occur due to God not regulating all earthly processes?  

The cases of chromosomal sex confusion are practically not existent, statistically speaking.  It seems like not too big a stretch to me to say that the norm still holds true - and that is without having the direct revelation that Pres. Nelson claims to have.  

And, as usual, I don't really KNOW at all.  🙂

Edited to add - CV7R was answering at the same time as me, and in a similar way - but better.  😛

 

Edited October 3, 2019 by Maestrophil

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

President Oaks has made the statement that gender is defined as "biological sex at birth" and reiterated that "binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation".

From a policy standpoint I can understand how/why he might make a statement like this but it makes me wonder if he is stating what he believes is an eternal truth received by revelation, or simply as a functional, operational definition currently being used by the church. Not only is "biological sex at birth" sometimes unclear or even contradictory (chromosomes versus organ), but the statement doesn't seem to take into account the vast variability of human biology.

I don't claim to understand how biology and gender identification works for all people so I find it challenging to believe that Pres. Oaks would have it all figured out. I think he's sharing his personal opinion but doing it with the mantle of First Presidency/Apostle behind him. In any case, the bold claim sure seems to be hurtful to many in the transgender community. IF the church is trying to reach out to the community, making bold proclamations about things they couldn't possibly know, isn't going to help matters.

Question-  Is perceptible biological sex at birth a person's eternal gender, or should the church and leaders be more open to variability of life and biological experience?

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10/02/dark-day-transgender/?fbclid=IwAR1bG0KT8eYLqOwUL0FROoQ5eVRjuJeK_uauO2tcNbFDq_guuc6rv-4PhSA

Uh, you know science is not religion, right?

This is a logical category error. It's like asking what color courage is.

Religion shows us the way to heaven not what the heavens weigh.

This is a symbolic concept like yin and yang, make and female.

It's a concept, the idea of opposition in all things. I would think the transgender people would be experts on opposition in all things, and you are asking about biology? 

Ask a biologist how much God weighs. I suppose that will be a start for you.

Edited October 3, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

The cases of chromosomal sex confusion are practically not existent, statistically speaking

CFR please.  I just read something that had the frequency of intersex (perhaps this is not what you are referring to) the same as redheads in the population.

[The Nehor]

In an unfallen world I doubt this is a thing. I doubt there are spirit beings with ambiguous sexuality at birth. In those rare cases where it happens I hope God sees the end from the beginning and takes steps. I am not as worried about chromosomes as I am what they obviously appear to be at birth. I am guessing that God puts the spirit into the body that matches the development.

Hence I think it is wrong to transition.

I am also not convinced by the (admittedly scanty) studies that it is helpful for the problems people who desire transition are experiencing. My even more scanty anecdotes from my own life with people who transition and one in a ward I attended that transitioned were also not positive. I also hope there is a strong screening process, especially for teenagers. I am guessing most people my age who went to college (not in the BYU system) knew many dedicated lesbians who went back to straight once they got older and it was clear it was more of a political statement after the fact. As sinful as that kind of sexual experimentation is it is more easily reversible then surgery and hormone treatments.

I am torn on legality. I want it illegal emotionally but rationally I am not sure where the line is between agency and protecting people from themselves is. My feeling currently is legal with strong screening process, especially for children and teenagers.

[Ahab]

59 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Question-  Is perceptible biological sex at birth a person's eternal gender, or should the church and leaders be more open to variability of life and biological experience?

I don't know about you but when I see a baby I look to see if it is a boy or a girl rather than waiting to see how he/she/it will identify himself/herself/itself.

And I operate on the premise that I was a boy/man/male in heaven before I was born as a male on this planet, since it is supposedly an eternal principle that we are either a boy or a girl and that would mean that we stay whatever sex we were born as in heaven regardless of what some doctors or other people may do to our bodies.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

President Oaks has made the statement that gender is defined as "biological sex at birth" and reiterated that "binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation".

From a policy standpoint I can understand how/why he might make a statement like this but it makes me wonder if he is stating what he believes is an eternal truth received by revelation, or simply as a functional, operational definition currently being used by the church. Not only is "biological sex at birth" sometimes unclear or even contradictory (chromosomes versus organ), but the statement doesn't seem to take into account the vast variability of human biology.

I don't claim to understand how biology and gender identification works for all people so I find it challenging to believe that Pres. Oaks would have it all figured out. I think he's sharing his personal opinion but doing it with the mantle of First Presidency/Apostle behind him. In any case, the bold claim sure seems to be hurtful to many in the transgender community. IF the church is trying to reach out to the community, making bold proclamations about things they couldn't possibly know, isn't going to help matters.

Question-  Is perceptible biological sex at birth a person's eternal gender, or should the church and leaders be more open to variability of life and biological experience?

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10/02/dark-day-transgender/?fbclid=IwAR1bG0KT8eYLqOwUL0FROoQ5eVRjuJeK_uauO2tcNbFDq_guuc6rv-4PhSA

I thought he was just clarifying what the Proclamation meant when it used the word gender (because definitions have changed somewhat from what most people understand them to be in 1995).

If that's what he was doing, then there is nothing wrong with the First Presidency clarifying the message or teachings of a church proclamation.   They might not know the bolded part, but they can certainly know what the church was trying to say and make sure that there is no misunderstanding about it, can't they?

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Uh, you know science is not religion, right?

This is a logical category error. It's like asking what color courage is.

Religion shows us the way to heaven not what the heavens weigh.

This is a symbolic concept like yin and yang.

I'm sorry but I really don't understand your comment in relation to mine. I'm sure I'm being slow. It's been one of those mornings. Could you connect a couple of the dots between my comment and yours?

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This article (as opposed to an opinion piece) may offer more context: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-first-presidency-leadership-session?cid=HP_NWSRM_10_2_19

He says, “binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.” So whatever confounding of the ideal that develops after the post-Creation Fall will be restored to the original proper binary order and proper and perfect frame (Alma). So I think  "biological sex at birth" refers to the ideal order of the finished plan and not to the various departures that we see occurring in mortal life.

RE: reaching out to the community and openness to variability of life and biological experience:

“When counseling with any members experiencing challenges related to their sexual orientation, Church leaders should affirm that God loves all His children, including those dealing with confusion about their sexual identity or other LGBT feelings,” President Oaks said. “Such members and their families have unique challenges. They should be offered hope and be ministered to as directed by the Spirit according to their true needs, remembering the admonition of Alma to mourn with those that mourn and comfort those who stand in need of comfort (see Mosiah 18:9).”

“Because we love God and understand His great plan of salvation and the significance of His commandments, we manifest our love for our neighbors by helping them come unto Christ, repent, and keep His commandments. This is part of bearing one another’s burdens that they may be light.”

I understand that leaders are suggesting kindness and compassion, but they are also stating an absolute truth. That while we can be compassionate, the transgender individual is wrong and should stick with their perceived biological gender. For those who are struggling with their identity I don't know how absolute statements are very helpful. We're not talking about the 95-98% of people that aren't affected, but those 2-5% who are. The only hope really being offered is that they will be "fixed" in the next life but there's not much hope in this one. There is concern that hope for being changed in the next life could urge some to seek the next life prematurely.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

President Oaks has made the statement that gender is defined as "biological sex at birth" and reiterated that "binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation".

From a policy standpoint I can understand how/why he might make a statement like this but it makes me wonder if he is stating what he believes is an eternal truth received by revelation, or simply as a functional, operational definition currently being used by the church.

I'm not sure it's an either/or.

Quote

Not only is "biological sex at birth" sometimes unclear or even contradictory (chromosomes versus organ),

Pres. Oaks is speaking of the rule.  You are speaking of rare ambiguities at the extreme margins of the rule.

Quote

but the statement doesn't seem to take into account the vast variability of human biology.

I think it does.  

Quote

I don't claim to understand how biology and gender identification works for all people so I find it challenging to believe that Pres. Oaks would have it all figured out.

I think Pres. Oaks rejects the notion that the exception can or does swallow the rule.  That an argument from the margins is availing.

Quote

I think he's sharing his personal opinion but doing it with the mantle of First Presidency/Apostle behind him.

I don't think so.  We'll see, I suppose.

Quote

In any case, the bold claim sure seems to be hurtful to many in the transgender community.

What if the "bold claim" is correct?

Quote

IF the church is trying to reach out to the community, making bold proclamations about things they couldn't possibly know, isn't going to help matters.

"Things they couldn't possibly know?"  How do you propose to substantiate that?

Quote

Question-  Is perceptible biological sex at birth a person's eternal gender, or should the church and leaders be more open to variability of life and biological experience?

My sense is that a person cannot change their gender, any more than they can change their age (Stefoknee Wolscht), or their ancestry (Rachel Dolezal), or their species (Eva Tiamat Medusa).

Gender dysphoria is clearly a thing.  But so is the rigorous politicization of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 3, 2019 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't know about you but when I see a baby I look to see if it is a boy or a girl rather than waiting to see how he/she/it will identify himself/herself/itself.

And I operate on the premise that I was a boy/man/male in heaven before I was born as a male on this planet, since it is supposedly an eternal principle that we are either a boy or a girl and that would mean that we stay whatever sex we were born as in heaven regardless of what some doctors or other people may do to our bodies.

But we're not really talking about you are we? We're talking about people who experience gender dysphoria, people whose visual gender doesn't match their chromosomes, or those born with undiscernible gender OR both organs. We are talking about a minority of people. I get that, but dismissing the minority because it doesn't match our personal experience seems to lack the kindness and compassion Pres. Oaks seems to be calling for.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought he was just clarifying what the Proclamation meant when it used the word gender (because definitions have changed somewhat from what most people understand them to be in 1995).

If that's what he was doing, then there is nothing wrong with the First Presidency clarifying the message or teachings of a church proclamation.   They might not know the bolded part, but they can certainly know what the church was trying to say and make sure that there is no misunderstanding about it, can't they?

This makes sense. And I can appreciate them clarifying the Church's position as it relates to policies. But I think when one of the highest ranking church leaders, who is purported to speak for God, makes a statement the lines blur between church policy and eternal gospel get blurred. So if he said something like "we don't know how this will work in the eternities, but here and now we will treat it as xxx", that would make sense to me. It would be a humble admission of not understanding how it will work in the eternities while also affirming church policies. But IMO he states it more like an eternal truth.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

We're talking about people who experience gender dysphoria, people whose visual gender doesn't match their chromosomes, or those born with undiscernible gender OR both organs. We are talking about a minority of people. I get that, but dismissing the minority because it doesn't match our personal experience seems to lack the kindness and compassion Pres. Oaks seems to be calling for.

I'm not dismissing them.  I'm simply stating that that as far as our sexual orientation goes we are what we are regardless of what we might prefer to be or whether or not we know what our sexual orientation should be.  I'm all for helping and getting people help to help them see and understand the reality of their situations and coping with those things that are simply a part of life.  I don't think we should simply pander to people or do whatever they want us to do to or for them, though.  We need to try to help them see things as God and our Lord want them to see things and people who don't know the truth of this reality well enough to know that sexual orientation is an eternal thing should seek the help of people who do know and can help them to see it.

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure it's an either/or.

Pres. Oaks is speaking of the rule.  You are speaking of rare ambiguities at the extreme margins of the rule.

I think it does.  

I think Pres. Oaks rejects the notion that the exception can or does swallow the rule.  That an argument from the margins is availing.

I don't think so.  We'll see, I suppose.

What if the "bold claim" is correct?

"Things they coulnd't possibly know?"  How do you propose to substantiate that?

My sense is that a person cannot change their gender, any more than they can change their age (Stefoknee Wolscht), or their ancestry (Rachel Dolezal), or their species (Eva Tiamat Medusa).

Gender dysphoria is clearly a thing.  But so is the rigorous politicization of it.

Thanks,

-Smac

But when speaking of "the rule" it would seem wise to at least acknowledge ambiguities and how there may be some uncertainty about how those ambiguities will play out in the future. For those who experience "the rule" there really isn't much reason to address it. It only matters because there are people in the margins that don't fit the rule.

So if it is "the rule" or "normal" that biological gender at birth will match eternal identity, then there must be some acknowledgement of the exceptions. I'm not seeing any of that. That makes people who are the exceptions feel like they don't matter or don't fit into God's plan. So while Oak's comments probably work for the vast majority of people, they don't acknowledge those whose experience is outside "the rule".

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm not dismissing them.  I'm simply stating that that as far as our sexual orientation goes we are what we are regardless of what we might prefer to be or whether or not we know what our sexual orientation should be.  I'm all for helping and getting people help to help them see and understand the reality of their situations and coping with those things that are simply a part of life.  I don't think we should simply pander to people or do whatever they want us to do to or for them, though.  We need to try to help them see things as God and our Lord want them to see things and people who don't know the truth of this reality well enough to know that sexual orientation is an eternal thing should seek the help of people who do know and can help them to see it.

The "dismissing" comment was actually about church leaders, but I think it applies to you as well. I don't say that to be rude or offensive or even critical but your comment illustrates a lack of understanding about what these people face and how they experience gender in their lives. I don't really understand it either, but I acknowledge that their experiences are different than mine so I am naturally limited in understanding their position. IMO- recognizing our limitations in understanding others unique experience is important in truly being kind and compassionate. It's when we think we know their experience, or dismiss it because its a minority or because they just need to get with God's program, is hurtful to them.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

President Oaks has made the statement that gender is defined as "biological sex at birth" and reiterated that "binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation".

From a policy standpoint I can understand how/why he might make a statement like this but it makes me wonder if he is stating what he believes is an eternal truth received by revelation, or simply as a functional, operational definition currently being used by the church. Not only is "biological sex at birth" sometimes unclear or even contradictory (chromosomes versus organ), but the statement doesn't seem to take into account the vast variability of human biology.

I don't claim to understand how biology and gender identification works for all people so I find it challenging to believe that Pres. Oaks would have it all figured out. I think he's sharing his personal opinion but doing it with the mantle of First Presidency/Apostle behind him. In any case, the bold claim sure seems to be hurtful to many in the transgender community. IF the church is trying to reach out to the community, making bold proclamations about things they couldn't possibly know, isn't going to help matters.

Question-  Is perceptible biological sex at birth a person's eternal gender, or should the church and leaders be more open to variability of life and biological experience?

 

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10/02/dark-day-transgender/?fbclid=IwAR1bG0KT8eYLqOwUL0FROoQ5eVRjuJeK_uauO2tcNbFDq_guuc6rv-4PhSA

Yes to your question, a 100%!

Jesus is our salvation! 

[Ahab]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This makes sense. And I can appreciate them clarifying the Church's position as it relates to policies. But I think when one of the highest ranking church leaders, who is purported to speak for God, makes a statement the lines blur between church policy and eternal gospel get blurred. So if he said something like "we don't know how this will work in the eternities, but here and now we will treat it as xxx", that would make sense to me. It would be a humble admission of not understanding how it will work in the eternities while also affirming church policies. But IMO he states it more like an eternal truth.

You are understanding him correctly, I believe.  He is stating it more like an eternal truth, and I believe the reason he is stating it that way is because it actually is.  Gender is defined at the moment our spirits are born as either sons or daughters of God in heaven.  there is no 3rd option up there, and according to your understanding of what President Oaks is stating, which is also my understanding, our gender in heaven remains our gender as we are born as mortals on this planet.  So if we were a boy/man/male in heaven we will still be a boy/man/male when we are born on this planet.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Question-  Is perceptible biological sex at birth a person's eternal gender, or should the church and leaders be more open to variability of life and biological experience?

That would mean that God leaves the determination of eternal gender to the perceptions of people which can be arbitrary especially in intersex cases. But God allows all sorts of challenges to human life, so it would be more consistent if God allowed misgendering to occur sometimes. And, as usual, when our bodies aren't as they should be, we can use human genius to attempt corrections. Most importantly, in my opinion, is human compassion for those doing their best to live in their skin, both when they defer a decision to the eternities, or attempt to correct it now.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Meadowchik said:

That would mean that God leaves the determination of eternal gender to the perceptions of people which can be arbitrary especially in intersex cases. But God allows all sorts of challenges to human life, so it would be more consistent if God allowed misgendering to occur sometimes. And, as usual, when our bodies aren't as they should be, we can use human genius to attempt corrections. Most importantly, in my opinion, is human compassion for those doing their best to live in their skin, both when they defer a decision to the eternities, or attempt to correct it now.

I am not sure I would call current gender transition techniques “genius”.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But when speaking of "the rule" it would seem wise to at least acknowledge ambiguities and how there may be some uncertainty about how those ambiguities will play out in the future.

To what end?

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For those who experience "the rule" there really isn't much reason to address it.

And for many of those who subjectively feel they are an exception to the rule, there is good reason to emphasize the rule.  

Social forces are trying to make gender a fluid thing, as being based on subjective thoughts and emotions.  I appreciate the clarity that Pres. Oaks is providing.

As for the tiny fraction of us who have biological/physiological "ambiguities" pertaining to their gender, these brother and sisters need some real compassion and understanding.  

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It only matters because there are people in the margins that don't fit the rule.

Actually, I think they do fit the rule.  We are all either male or female.  For almost all of us, this categorization is very clear. 

For some few, there are psychological/emotional sentiments in play (gender dysphoria).  Pres. Oaks' comments can actually help clarify things for such folks (those who are willing to listen, anyway).

For some very few, there can be some biological/physiological ambiguity.  The categorization is still there, but it's application is, for some, not immediately discernible.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So if it is "the rule" or "normal" that biological gender at birth will match eternal identity,

I think that's fairly clear.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

then there must be some acknowledgement of the exceptions.

I would not characterize these as "exceptions."  The rule applies to all of us.  For a very small number, how the rule applies may be somewhat ambiguous.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not seeing any of that.

I wonder if that runs the risk of giving false hope to most people with gender dysphoria.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That makes people who are the exceptions feel like they don't matter or don't fit into God's plan.

Again, I don't think there are any "exceptions."  The rule applies to everyone.  There is instead a very small number for whom the application of the rule is potentially not immediately clear.

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So while Oak's comments probably work for the vast majority of people, they don't acknowledge those whose experience is outside "the rule".

Unless nobody is "outside 'the rule.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

You are understanding him correctly, I believe.  He is stating it more like an eternal truth, and I believe the reason he is stating it that way is because it actually is.  Gender is defined at the moment our spirits are born as either sons or daughters of God in heaven.  there is no 3rd option up there, and according to your understanding of what President Oaks is stating, which is also my understanding, our gender in heaven remains our gender as we are born as mortals on this planet.  So if we were a boy/man/male in heaven we will still be a boy/man/male when we are born on this planet.

But obviously there are variations between our spirit self and our mortal self, right? In other words, our biology doesn't perfectly match our spirit whether it be in regard to issues of physical or mental limitations, so it seems at least possible there might be other biological differences that don't exactly fit our spirit.

I agree that he's stating it as an eternal truth, but has there ever been a revelation specifically about this issue? I'm not aware of anything. I'm aware of things like the proclamation, or other general statements about what the "rule" or "norm" is, but I've never seen anything that addresses the situations outside of those norms. To speak of eternal truth on such a specific topic it feels like there should be a revelation so that it is easy to distinguish God's word versus the assumptions or bias of the individual who happens to be speaking

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This makes sense. And I can appreciate them clarifying the Church's position as it relates to policies. But I think when one of the highest ranking church leaders, who is purported to speak for God, makes a statement the lines blur between church policy and eternal gospel get blurred. So if he said something like "we don't know how this will work in the eternities, but here and now we will treat it as xxx", that would make sense to me. It would be a humble admission of not understanding how it will work in the eternities while also affirming church policies. But IMO he states it more like an eternal truth.

The proclamation teaches it as eternal truth, doesn't it (sincere question, I haven't read the proclamation in a while and I don't have time to dig it up right now)?

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That would mean that God leaves the determination of eternal gender to the perceptions of people which can be arbitrary especially in intersex cases. But God allows all sorts of challenges to human life, so it would be more consistent if God allowed misgendering to occur sometimes. And, as usual, when our bodies aren't as they should be, we can use human genius to attempt corrections. Most importantly, in my opinion, is human compassion for those doing their best to live in their skin, both when they defer a decision to the eternities, or attempt to correct it now.

I think the jury is still out on whether or not our bodies "aren't as they should be".  Some people say they are and some people say they are not.  It's a mixed bag of answers.  And each owner of his or her body may not even know.  Some think theirs is.  Some think theirs is not.

Oh whoa is me!  Who is to get us out of this mess!?!  I sure wish I knew!  I wish somebody would tell me!  Oh wait, somebody did, and I know God agrees with him, too.

Problem solved.  We can all start talking about something else now.

[CV75]

40 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I understand that leaders are suggesting kindness and compassion, but they are also stating an absolute truth. That while we can be compassionate, the transgender individual is wrong and should stick with their perceived biological gender. For those who are struggling with their identity I don't know how absolute statements are very helpful. We're not talking about the 95-98% of people that aren't affected, but those 2-5% who are. The only hope really being offered is that they will be "fixed" in the next life but there's not much hope in this one. There is concern that hope for being changed in the next life could urge some to seek the next life prematurely.

I overlooked that when you used “community,” you meant “transgender community and transgender individuals.”

So: ministering to the individuals "as directed by the Spirit" could yield some positive resolutions other than the hopelessness (and he did say, " They should be offered hope" -- which is not merely future-oriented but quite in the present) and suicide you set out. Each person has to be receptive, and the light of Christ and the power of the Spirit working with each individual prepares them to hear a message they might otherwise disregard or reject. It has happened before.

As individuals are drawn unto Christ, they will choose the abundant life given whatever circumstances they face, recognizing that we all need to be “fixed” in the next life in some form or fashion. This will be the resurrected person.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To what end?

And for many of those who subjectively feel they are an exception to the rule, there is good reason to emphasize the rule.  

Social forces are trying to make gender a fluid thing, as being based on subjective thoughts and emotions.  I appreciate the clarity that Pres. Oaks is providing.

As for the tiny fraction of us who have biological/physiological "ambiguities" pertaining to their gender, these brother and sisters need some real compassion and understanding.  

Actually, I think they do fit the rule.  We are all either male or female.  For almost all of us, this categorization is very clear. 

For some few, there are psychological/emotional sentiments in play (gender dysphoria).  Pres. Oaks' comments can actually help clarify things for such folks (those who are willing to listen, anyway).

For some very few, there can be some biological/physiological ambiguity.  The categorization is still there, but it's application is, for some, not immediately discernible.

I think that's fairly clear.

I would not characterize these as "exceptions."  The rule applies to all of us.  For a very small number, how the rule applies may be somewhat ambiguous.

I wonder if that runs the risk of giving false hope to most people with gender dysphoria.

Again, I don't think there are any "exceptions."  The rule applies to everyone.  There is instead a very small number for whom the application of the rule is potentially not immediately clear.

Unless nobody is "outside 'the rule.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

"The rule" was being used as an expression of "the norm". Sorry, I thought that was clear.