Eternal Gender: Biology at Birth?

[Ahab]

57 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It used to be considered quite a challenge to be born black as well--seeing as the presumed truth was that those who are black were unfaithful before this world was, or were cursed via Cain, or ham or whoever.  As time has passed those past revelations are considered stupid and the masses need not treat people as if their race is a challenge for them to have to endure.  I think this will turn out similar in time.  There will remain those archaic thinking types who presume answers that they seemingly have no clue about.  Perhaps it won't be considered a challenge one day, and we'll be a happier more healthy people overall.  That's kind of what progress is supposed to be about.  

The Church stubbornly held on to racism even though the rest of the world was catching on to the foolishness that it was.  The church was seen as holding on to archaic thinking, prizing tradition over the obvious.  What can we say the Church is almost always behind, unable to see anything ahead.  It just moves after the world moves, afraid of truth and goodness all too often.  Ah well...what more can we say?

 

That you have a distorted a distorted view of the truth and of the world and of the church, etc.  Ah well, you would probably just say the same thing about me and anyone else who agrees with me.

When the world is ready to see the truth of the Book of Mormon maybe you will then have a better understanding of who is ahead and who is behind.

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That you have a distorted a distorted view of the truth and of the world and of the church, etc.  Ah well, you would probably just say the same thing about me and anyone else who agrees with me.

When the world is ready to see the truth of the Book of Mormon maybe you will then have a better understanding of who is ahead and who is behind.

I don't think I"ve distorted anything.  I might have chosen a different way to describe things as you.  

What is the truth of the Book of Mormon you speak of?  You mean the claim that is has true history of ancient people?  or that it contains the word of God?  If that latter, what does that mean to you?

[phaedrus ut]

Oaks comments are hopelessly ill informed to the point it's intentionally ignoring science.  If you look at the statistics for just medically intersex, not specifically just transgender, they look like this. 

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births

Klinefelter (XXY)one in 1,000 births

Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births

Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births

Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births

Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals

Vaginal agenesisone in 6,000 births

Ovotestesone in 83,000 births

Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause)one in 110,000 births

Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother)no estimate

5 alpha reductase deficiencyno estimate

Mixed gonadal dysgenesisno estimate

Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births

Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft)one in 2,000 births

Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis)one in 770 births

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births

Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

Source

With this we have the statistic that we often see the estimate of 1.7% of the population.  That is an estimated 128 million people globally.  That means the worldwide intersex population is 8 times larger than the membership in the LDS Church.  

Phaedrus 

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Oaks comments are hopelessly ill informed to the point it's intentionally ignoring science.  If you look at the statistics for just medically intersex, not specifically just transgender, they look like this. 

Not XX and not XY one in 1,666 births

Klinefelter (XXY)one in 1,000 births

Androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 13,000 births

Partial androgen insensitivity syndrome one in 130,000 births

Classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia one in 13,000 births

Late onset adrenal hyperplasia one in 66 individuals

Vaginal agenesisone in 6,000 births

Ovotestesone in 83,000 births

Idiopathic (no discernable medical cause)one in 110,000 births

Iatrogenic (caused by medical treatment, for instance progestin administered to pregnant mother)no estimate

5 alpha reductase deficiencyno estimate

Mixed gonadal dysgenesisno estimate

Complete gonadal dysgenesis one in 150,000 births

Hypospadias (urethral opening in perineum or along penile shaft)one in 2,000 births

Hypospadias (urethral opening between corona and tip of glans penis)one in 770 births

Total number of people whose bodies differ from standard male or female one in 100 births

Total number of people receiving surgery to “normalize” genital appearance one or two in 1,000 births

Source

With this we have the statistic that we often see the estimate of 1.7% of the population.  That is an estimated 128 million people globally.  That means the worldwide intersex population is 8 times larger than the membership in the LDS Church.  

Phaedrus 

Very interesting when considering the notions being bandied about on this thread.  Considering most members of the Church don't really go to church or may not even believe or care what Oaks has to say on anything...well...it makes the whole normal spin to it seem silly.  

 

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

What is the truth of the Book of Mormon you speak of?  You mean the claim that is has true history of ancient people?  or that it contains the word of God?  If that latter, what does that mean to you?

Without giving specifics at this time I'm talking about the world coming to a knowledge of the truth relative to the Book of Mormon.  If you think they're ahead of the Church in knowing the truth of the Book of Mormon, that they know more truth about it than we do and we need to catch up to their perspective because they are ahead of us and we are behind, well, then you should go with who you think has a better knowledge of the truth about that.

And then you can start picking apart other differences between the Church and the world and see who is ahead regarding those other things, too.  Keep a tally.  

What would be next, I wonder.  The world doesn't seem to have a problem with women being ordained to an office of the priesthood of God.  Is the world ahead of the Church regarding that, too?  

What else would maybe be on your list?  That all you have to do is be a good person, as you define a good person, and then you will go to heaven?

You really don't need to wait for the Church to catch up to the world if you think the world is ahead of us regarding our knowledge of what is good and true.  You can just be in the world and not be a part of the Church, this Church or any other church.

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Without giving specifics at this time I'm talking about the world coming to a knowledge of the truth relative to the Book of Mormon.  If you think they're ahead of the Church in knowing the truth of the Book of Mormon, that they know more truth about it than we do and we need to catch up to their perspective because they are ahead of us and we are behind, well, then you should go with who you think has a better knowledge of the truth about that.

And then you can start picking apart other differences between the Church and the world and see who is ahead regarding those other things, too.  Keep a tally.  

What would be next, I wonder.  The world doesn't seem to have a problem with women being ordained to an office of the priesthood of God.  Is the world ahead of the Church regarding that, too?  

What else would maybe be on your list?  That all you have to do is be a good person, as you define a good person, and then you will go to heaven?

You really don't need to wait for the Church to catch up to the world if you think the world is ahead of us regarding our knowledge of what is good and true.  You can just be in the world and not be a part of the Church, this Church or any other church.

Yes.  true.  So why are members bothering?  They seem to be fighting to get the Church up to speed when they can just be up to speed without the Church holding them back.  

Edited October 4, 2019 by stemelbow

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Yes.  true.  So why are members bothering?  They seem to be fighting to get the Church up to speed when they can just be up to speed without the Church holding them back.  

Because people are always impatient to create God in their own image.  They don't like it when the Church tells them their image is incorrect.
They take it personally.  (Go figure...)

Edited October 4, 2019 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

Yes.  true.  So why are members bothering?  They seem to be fighting to get the Church up to speed when they can just be up to speed without the Church holding them back.  

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought you would say.  I see the Church as ahead of the world in pretty much every way, though, even though the Church does sometimes wait for the world to catch up or even appear to be leading the way before the Church takes another step forward.   Like a teacher teaching a student hoping the student will jump to some conclusions that the teacher hasn't mentioned yet.  When that happens that doesn't mean the child is ahead of the teacher then.  The teacher already knew more than she had taught the child up to that point and the teacher was just waiting for the child to show she was ready for more. So when the world catches up to the Church's understanding of truth regarding the Book of Mormon, since it is the Church that is actually ahead while the world is behind, the Church may then show the world some more truth that the world hasn't even thought about yet.

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because people are always impatient to create God in their own image.  They don't like it when the Church tells them their image is incorrect.
They take it personally.  (Go figure...)

Maybe the Church is wrong to tell them their image in incorrect.  Perhaps it is the Church who has the wrong image and is intent on continuing to push this wrong image.  I think that the church has fallen behind too often might indicate that is the case.  

 

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yeah, that's pretty much what I thought you would say.  I see the Church as ahead of the world in pretty much every way, though, even though the Church does sometimes wait for the world to catch up or even appear to be leading the way before the Church takes another step forward.   Like a teacher teaching a student hoping the student will jump to some conclusions that the teacher hasn't mentioned yet.  When that happens that doesn't mean the child is ahead of the teacher then.  The teacher already knew more than she had taught the child up to that point and the teacher was just waiting for the child to show she was ready for more. So when the world catches up to the Church's understanding of truth regarding the Book of Mormon, since it is the Church that is actually ahead while the world is behind, the Church may then show the world some more truth that the world hasn't even thought about yet.

I forget I can only post a couple of times a day around here, due to the restrictions they've put on me.  Anyway, for a long time, even as an active member, I really struggled with the Church's attacks on others.  I didn't really like the be in the world and not of it, type of stuff, trying to put members on a pedestal above them all.  I also never really bought into the evils of the world themes the Church centered on.  that was really some behind teaching.  I see it still prominent and see members use it to claim their exalted position. As it were though, the church was really guided by the decisions of say the prominent evangelical movement in America, catholocism and other outside forces.  And in many cases the Church was dragged along to get in line.  To say the Church is out there in front leading anything is basically delusional from my perspective.  But, you know, to each his own.  

Edited October 4, 2019 by stemelbow

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Maybe the Church is wrong to tell them their image in incorrect.  Perhaps it is the Church who has the wrong image and is intent on continuing to push this wrong image.  I think that the church has fallen behind too often might indicate that is the case.  

Nah.
Your usage of the phrase "fallen behind" says it all.
God is not progressive in that manner.  Eternal things don't change.  Society changes and it is a HUGE assumption that we are moving closer to the eternal reality.
Just because society becomes more accepting of something doesn't have any impact on whether or not it's closer to how things really are.

The number of progressions society has progressed through that are completely wrong is extremely long.  Society gets it wrong as often as they get it right.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Why kick out more sheep from he fold over cosmetic surgery?

Are you claiming that such surgery alters nothing but appearance of the individual?

Quote

It's not all about procreation, not everyone is going to fit that LDS mold.

I speculate the issue of procreation is so great in the Church not so much because creation is a godly power (after all there are other things we create outside of procreation), but because sins involving the procreation process may have life altering acts on other individuals, someone’s potential family, and those sins demonstrate a lack of care and respect for those individuals (think of impact of carelessness with sex resulting in stds being given to spouses or harming one’s children, unwanted pregnancies resulting in unnecessary hardship for those children or even convenience abortions, acts that amount to choosing sterilization removes one’s ability to contribute to the creation of of the individuals of one's family though of course they can adopt).

[california boy]

20 hours ago, Ahab said:

What support do you have for these statements?  And what do you mean by "normal church participant"?  People like that are clearly not "normal" by any stretch of the word so how or why should they be considered to be "normal"?

Normal or not, they still have the right to exist on this planet and they can participate in the church as long as they abide by Church rule.. meaning it is the Church who decides how much anyone can participate in it, through the priesthood of God.

You keep saying that these people are not normal.  You do realize members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not normal either.   In fact they are down right pecular.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

It used to be considered quite a challenge to be born black as well--seeing as the presumed truth was that those who are black were unfaithful before this world was, or were cursed via Cain, or ham or whoever.  As time has passed those past revelations are considered stupid and the masses need not treat people as if their race is a challenge for them to have to endure.  I think this will turn out similar in time.  There will remain those archaic thinking types who presume answers that they seemingly have no clue about.  Perhaps it won't be considered a challenge one day, and we'll be a happier more healthy people overall.  That's kind of what progress is supposed to be about.  

The Church stubbornly held on to racism even though the rest of the world was catching on to the foolishness that it was.  The church was seen as holding on to archaic thinking, prizing tradition over the obvious.  What can we say the Church is almost always behind, unable to see anything ahead.  It just moves after the world moves, afraid of truth and goodness all too often.  Ah well...what more can we say?

 

You say it better than I, thank you!! 😍

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

You keep saying that these people are not normal.  You do realize members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are not normal either.   In fact they are down right pecular.

Not as peculiar as those kinds of people.  And even more rare.

When I said "normal" I was thinking in terms of how babies "usually" turn out as either a boy or a girl and it is fairly easy to tell which sex a baby is.  No deformities, no extra body parts or parts in some other place than were they "usually" are.

You know, normal.  Has the world gotten to the point where some people don't even know what "normal" is now?

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Not as peculiar as those kinds of people.  And even more rare.

When I said "normal" I was thinking in terms of how babies "usually" turn out as either a boy or a girl and it is fairly easy to tell which sex a baby is.  No deformities, no extra body parts or parts in some other place than were they "usually" are.

You know, normal.  Has the world gotten to the point where some people don't even know what "normal" is now?

Your words drip with condescension and derision.

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/3/2019 at 11:49 AM, 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.”

Why would we discuss principles when someone's opinion has been shared?

 

[nuclearfuels]

On 10/3/2019 at 11:52 AM, Maestrophil said:

with the caveat that errors in the process occur due to God not regulating all earthly processes?  

Wouldn't it be nice if He let all of us be born and live w/o any problems or challenges?

Wait- that was someone else's plan

[california boy]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you claiming that such surgery alters nothing but appearance of the individual?

In the end, yes.  It is all about changing one’s appearance. Which is exactly what cosmetic surgery is.   Some of it is done with a knife and some is done with hormonal treatment.  Many women in the church do both of those treatments. Theirs is just more extensive than most.   

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Why would we discuss principles when someone's opinion has been shared?

 

To focus on principles rather than personal opinions.  Personal opinions are still going to come out, though, and I don't think there is any way to avoid that if you are sharing what you think.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Wouldn't it be nice if He let all of us be born and live w/o any problems or challenges?

Wait- that was someone else's plan

We learn through conflict and opposition.  Someone shared a link to a talk about that recently and it was really good read.  I'll try to find it for you if you are interested.  Otherwise you can just learn whatever you can learn as you go.

I actually like this back and forth stuff.  Opposition helps to make us healthier.  If everything was easy it would be boring.  So go ahead and make this as difficult as you can for me.  I like a good challenge.

[stemelbow]

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Nah.
Your usage of the phrase "fallen behind" says it all.
God is not progressive in that manner.  Eternal things don't change.  Society changes and it is a HUGE assumption that we are moving closer to the eternal reality.

Then you must take up your issue with the Church itself.  As we all know the Church is now saying that which was considered from God--the explanations for the priesthood ban and the ban itself--were not really from God.  They were just explanations people adopted.  And the ban was implemented at least in part because fo the prejudices of the early saints, if you will.  You see, you complain that the truths are eternal and cant' change, while also accepting that changes happened.  Tryign to categorize them as something other than truths, works a bit, I'm sure.  But ultimately it all just shows that the Church changes when they are forced to (oh yeah polygamy anyone?)

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Just because society becomes more accepting of something doesn't have any impact on whether or not it's closer to how things really are.

But it could.  For instance in terms of racism.  Society's recognizing the evils of that stuff, really pushed the Church to change.  Without the society's pushing there's little reason the Church would have considered reversing it's practice.  

34 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The number of progressions society has progressed through that are completely wrong is extremely long.  Society gets it wrong as often as they get it right.

The church is no different, tagging along years behind in many ways.  Welcome to humanity.  We're just working our butts off to get somewhere more useful.  Sometimes we go a bit backways, sometimes forward, sometimes quickly, sometimes slowly.  I"m not saying we'll figure it all out, but certainly we don't embrace the notions of racism as overtly as we used to, thanks to human progress.  There are plenty more examples..but this one is easiest to bring in.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

In the end, yes.  It is all about changing one’s appearance. Which is exactly what cosmetic surgery is.   Some of it is done with a knife and some is done with hormonal treatment.  Many women in the church do both of those treatments. Theirs is just more extensive than most.   

Thank you.  That backs up what I said about a man still being a man even if he looks like a woman.  Even exactly like a woman.  He is still really a man no matter what kind of surgery has been done on his body.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Not as peculiar as those kinds of people.  And even more rare.

When I said "normal" I was thinking in terms of how babies "usually" turn out as either a boy or a girl and it is fairly easy to tell which sex a baby is.  No deformities, no extra body parts or parts in some other place than were they "usually" are.

You know, normal.  Has the world gotten to the point where some people don't even know what "normal" is now?

No, it is more they don’t see certain norms as useful to use as standards of what is appropriate, such as race or religion or certain behaviours. 

Condemning or ridiculing someone based on whether or not they fit the “norm” is bigotry, imo.  It is like focusing on the differences of someone who stutters or wears thick glasses in kindergarten as not “normal”....would you like your kids to introduce such a class member to you like that, “look, Dad, Mike can’t even speak so I can understand  him half the time, he’s not normal” or “Joan’s eyes look like bugs’ eyes, that’s not normal!”  That kind of attitude even if technically correct, desiring to label others as “not normal” as in different from the rest of us “normal people” too often leads to bullying or worse.

We need to be careful to address what is the real issue (choosing behaviour we believe is sinful) and not transfer our concern for that to disrespect for the individual or to justify seeing that individual as “other”.

Edited October 4, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

In the end, yes.  It is all about changing one’s appearance. Which is exactly what cosmetic surgery is.   Some of it is done with a knife and some is done with hormonal treatment.  Many women in the church do both of those treatments. Theirs is just more extensive than most.   

Removing organs such as the uterus or testicles results in much more than just change of appearance even if done for the purpose of appearance change. 

Being male or female or another gender...is that only appearance in your opinion? (Serious question)

Edited October 4, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

No, it is more they don’t see certain norms as useful to use as standards of what is appropriate, such as race or religion or certain behaviours. 

Condemning or ridiculing someone based on whether or not they fit the “norm” is bigotry, imo.  It is like focusing on the differences of someone who stutters or wears thick glasses in kindergarten as not “normal”....would you like your kids to introduce such a class member to you like that, “look, Dad, Mike can’t even speak so I can understand  him half the time, he’s not normal” or “Joan’s eyes look like bugs’ eyes, that’s not normal!”  That kind of attitude, desiring to label others as “not normal” too often leads to bullying or worse.

We need to be careful to address what is the real issue (choosing behaviour we believe is sinful) and not transfer our concern for that to disrespect for the individual or to justify seeing that individual as “other”.

I agree that we need to be careful not to ridicule or condemn people for not being normal.  Including not ridiculing or condemning me if you have the idea that I am not normal.  Not condemning or ridiculing others doesn't mean we can't state what normal is when some people seem to have trouble understanding what normal is, though. It can be useful to compare what is normal with what is not normal and then see if there is any value in being normal, or to see if not being normal is just as good.

We compare and contrast things all the time, and I think that is normal, when we are trying to learn about something.  No reason we can't do that on this issue rather than just acting like everything is the same and it doesn't make any difference at all if something is normal or not normal.  Norms are norms for a reason.  Maybe some good reasons.  Maybe some bad reasons too.