Transgender pronouns and baptism

[sunstoned]

43 minutes ago, Cordelia said:

And I will never believe that they're mutually exclusive.

Perhaps not.  But it seems that as science advances, it causes religion to modify its beliefs. Case in point, Garden of Eden, 6000 year old earth, global flood, towel of Babel, BoM introduction, and my guess is that soon the BoA intro will be modified.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, sunstoned said:

Perhaps not.  But it seems that as science advances, it causes religion to modify its beliefs. Case in point, Garden of Eden, 6000 year old earth, global flood, towel of Babel, BoM introduction, and my guess is that soon the BoA intro will be modified.

There will always be fundamentalists/literalists. If, hypothetically, the Church were to join most of Catholic and Protestant Christianity in jettisoning most/nearly all literal interpretations, then its vitality, enthusiasm and commitment will track with that. 

Fundamentalists/literalists may be mocked by the "brights," but there will always be demand for it --- people yearning for foundational stories to be literally true. I think the high intensity/high commitment religions will always be found there. 

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

At the core level it comes down to religion vs. science.  

What does science say about transgender individuals who have no scientific reason to explain it?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, BRMC said:

You don't read that well.  I joined the board years ago.

I don't know where you have been "years ago", but  I do know that your very first post was November 28,2021, barely a month ago.  Since then you have posted 275 times.  So let's not pretend that you have been a contributing member "for years"

[california boy]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

So, some churches sanction same-sex marriage and some do not, all use scriptural justification, and their members sustain their respective articles and covenants. That is one principle of religious freedom in action.

The Mosiah 18 passage you shared shows that the baptisms were performed under the auspices of the church, by the power and authority of God (verse 17). The verses you shared constitute the “baptismal interview” and calls for keeping God’s commandments, which we know in that time and place excluded sex outside of marriage and same-sex marriage, as is also the case for your Genesis 2 and Timothy 4 references.

A person who is in a same sex relationship or marriage is certainly capable of bearing one another's burdens, offering comfort, mourning with those that suffer and keeping the commandments.

But the wording in the Mosiah 18 passage you shared is “willing” and “will”, and if they are not willing to keep the commandments in this area, they should not be baptized according to the interview and covenant. Holding to gay marriage as a specific exception to the commandments, just as any other exception to the commandments, would not meet the requirements for the covenant of baptism. It does not negate all the other Christlike qualities a person may choose to emulate.

Being forgiven of things done in ignorance is not the same as the remission of sins by baptism into the church, which requires sufficient knowledge of the commandments. I don’t think gay marriage is entered into ignorantly by a member of the Church, and is not continued ignorantly by someone who wishes to be baptized into the Church. It would be a willful, informed decision to ignore that particular commandment.

The question may be why same-sex marriage is sufficient to prevent someone from joining or staying in the Church; why that commandment or practice is so fundamental to membership. Maybe that is a topic for another thread; but if anyone wants to pick up that theme, I’m fine with participating.

Thanks for reading my post and giving your take on Mosiah.  I am only presenting a different point of view.  I made your last statement in bold because that is exactly the point I wanted to make. And personally, I think it is the core of what has made this exclusion of gay married couples so divisive.  

[BRMC]

11 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't know where you have been "years ago", but  I do know that your very first post was November 28,2021, barely a month ago.  Since then you have posted 275 times.  So let's not pretend that you have been a contributing member "for years"

That is an absolutely false statement.

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, BRMC said:

That is an absolutely false statement.

You do know that anyone can see right below your name how many post you have made on this board.  Is all they have to do is click on those numbers and it will bring up every single post you have made.  Anyone can then go to your very first post, the date is attached to each and every post.  In your case,  it shows your very first post was November 28,2021.

I am not going to argue with you because I don't have to. My statement is easy to check.

[BRMC]

12 minutes ago, california boy said:

You do know that anyone can see right below your name how many post you have made on this board.  Is all they have to do is click on those numbers and it will bring up every single post you have made.  Anyone can then go to your very first post, the date is attached to each and every post.  In your case,  it shows your very first post was November 28,2021.

I am not going to argue with you because I don't have to. My statement is easy to check.

Actually, it shows posts much earlier than that.  You just have to actually know what you're talking about to find them.  Keep trolling.

You never have to argue.  You don't even half to engage.  You seem to keep doing it, though.

Edited January 3, 2022 by BRMC

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, california boy said:

You do know that anyone can see right below your name how many post you have made on this board.  Is all they have to do is click on those numbers and it will bring up every single post you have made.  Anyone can then go to your very first post, the date is attached to each and every post.  In your case,  it shows your very first post was November 28,2021.

I am not going to argue with you because I don't have to. My statement is easy to check.

Actually the profiles only show posts for the last year nowadays.  I noticed this some months ago and was rather ticked off as that left only google and it does not catch all posts, or even close to all of a poster’s activity at times the further one goes back (added:  looks like a minority even if recent).  Clicking on his activity brings 10 pages with 25 posts each and an 11th page of 14 posts if I counted correctly.  That would make a total of 264 posts in the last year, leaving 13 posts unaccounted for, I believe.  Since moderators don’t usually hide posts unless they are vulgar iirc, my guess is the 13 posts were posted sometime before Jan 4, 20210 and Sept 2017 or whenever he registered on the board (I am going from memory here, so it may not be Sept).  I don’t know if google doesn’t search on the names attached to the posts and only when the name is cited in another’s post, such as with the quote function, but google did not bring up any older than a year BRMC’s posts, so I can’t confirm my calculation that he has 13 posts prior to a year ago is correct. (Looking at the google hits…about 40, so about 1 in 6 postsappeared to be identified, some are quoting “BRMC enthusiast” which is a rank, though not his current one, so at least some hits do not require being quoted)

Edited January 3, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for reading my post and giving your take on Mosiah.  I am only presenting a different point of view.  I made your last statement in bold because that is exactly the point I wanted to make. And personally, I think it is the core of what has made this exclusion of gay married couples so divisive.  

Likewise, thank you. 

The Holy Spirit will confirm the truth of the Restoration to anyone in any circumstance who sincerely pursues this path, and they certainly have Christlike desires and behavior in this regard. But they also have the “natural man” that may tug at them on this one point, and are not “willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him” to meet the minimum requirements of baptism.

So they may ask, like me, “why same-sex marriage is sufficient to prevent someone from joining or staying in the Church; why that commandment or practice is so fundamental to membership’” or ask, like you, “Is gay marriage worse than that—[putting Him on a cross without knowing who He is]?”

I think the key to your question is repentance. All sins are the same in that they require repentance for the individual to proceed to baptism. That would be the case for both the Roman soldiers following orders and a married gay couple. I think the key to my question is that the Savior came into this world to redeem it, and set the covenant path for us to follow from the pattern of His conception onward, hence the emphasis His parentage receives in Mosiah 3:8 (and elsewhere) as a covenant central to all other appending covenants.

[carbon dioxide]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think that Rongo acknowledged that chromosomes can get mixed up (I think that's what he meant by "true hermaphrodite" but hopefully he'll clarify).  What I was responding to was the bolded statement--"misaligning a female spirit into a male physical body" which I read as "someone screwed up and put the wrong spirit in the wrong body".

Where there is no extra chromosomes or lacking chromosomes--when all the chromosomes are where science says they should be for biological sex--but the person still identifies as transgender.  I think that's the situation that is complicated for some religious people to understand, and that's probably the kind of situation that Rongo wouldn't consider "true hermaphrodite" because there is no science backing it up.

It does mix the two issue.  These young kids who are identifying as the opposite gender are not doing so as a result of some chromosome test done.     They decision is based on how they feel.  I might feel that I am a black, 7 foot tall man but that does not mean I am.  

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Actually, it shows posts much earlier than that.  You just have to actually know what you're talking about to find them.  Keep trolling.

You never have to argue.  You don't even half to engage.  You seem to keep doing it, though.

Before you edited, you mentioned something about something showing posts before June 2021…could you explain what you meant (perhaps you meant January)?  I tried to find what you were referring to and couldn’t find it.  I am interested in easy ways to check how good google is at finding older posts, so I can extrapolate how much is missing when I am trying to find a reference and therefore if it is worth it to keep trying to locate something.

[BRMC]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

Before you edited, you mentioned something about something showing posts before June 2021…could you explain what you meant (perhaps you meant January)?  I tried to find what you were referring to and couldn’t find it.  I am interested in easy ways to check how good google is at finding older posts, so I can extrapolate how much is missing when I am trying to find a reference and therefore if it is worth it to keep trying to locate something.

Sure.  It wasn't posts I was talking about, but badges.  That's why I edited.  If I go to your profile, click badges, and look at your badge timeline it shows previous badges as "before June 2021" for me.

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, BRMC said:

Sure.  It wasn't posts I was talking about, but badges.  That's why I edited.  If I go to your profile, click badges, and look at your badge timeline it shows previous badges as "before June 2021" for me.

Thank you for explaining…Jun must have been when we got the badges and it doesn’t track the day we got them if prior to that.

Cordelia already has 25 posts and is an apprentice. Let’s see if I can find a newbie and rookie to track to see when they change to the next rank.  Unless someone already knows?

added:  checked a new poster, looks like 5 gets you changed from Newbie to Rookie and I am guessing 25 is the next change.

Edited January 3, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Perhaps not.  But it seems that as science advances, it causes religion to modify its beliefs. Case in point, Garden of Eden, 6000 year old earth, global flood, towel of Babel, BoM introduction, and my guess is that soon the BoA intro will be modified.

Which is fine; we have this statement which keeps things in perspective:

“The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. But in connection with these, we believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.” -- Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 3:30 (quoted/edited slightly differently in other sources).

I cannot think of any current scientific advancement or direction that would alter this fundamental or appending beliefs, each a reflection of the ongoing exercise of the restored keys of the kingdom.

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

What does science say about transgender individuals who have no scientific reason to explain it?

I have no clue. Except that they do exist.

[Mike Drop]

On 12/31/2021 at 6:09 PM, JLHPROF said:

Which allows for salvation through Christ but effectively blocks the ordinances of exaltation.  Seems a reasonable middle ground.

As mortals living here on earth, we have absolutely no idea what exalts a person in the next stage of our existence. Personally, I think exaltation might be as simple as truly understanding we don’t understand. That is a very very hard concept for most to understand. Understand?

Edited January 4, 2022 by Mike Drop

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

As mortals living here on earth, we have absolutely no idea what exalts a person in the next stage of our existence. Personally, I think exaltation might be as simple as truly understanding we don’t understand. That is a very very hard concept for most to understand. Understand?

D&C 132:19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Good enough for me.

[Analytics]

Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness. The intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation is biological sex at birth.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in the family proclamation is that we now know that biological sex is not binary. Quoting Scientific American (Blog):

Quote

Nearly everyone in middle school biology learned that if you’ve got XX chromosomes, you’re a female; if you’ve got XY, you’re a male. This tired simplification is great for teaching the importance of chromosomes but betrays the true nature of biological sex. The popular belief that your sex arises only from your chromosomal makeup is wrong. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.

Why? Because biological sex is far more complicated than XX or XY (or XXY, or just X). XX individuals could present with male gonads. XY individuals can have ovaries. How? Through a set of complex genetic signals that, in the course of a human’s development, begins with a small group of cells called the bipotential primordium and a gene called SRY...

 

While this is a small overview, the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real. It is time that we acknowledge this. Defining a person’s sex identity using decontextualized “facts” is unscientific and dehumanizing. The trans experience provides essential insights into the science of sex and scientifically demonstrates that uncommon and atypical phenomena are vital for a successful living system. Even the scientific endeavor itself is quantifiably better when it is more inclusive and diverse. So, no matter what a pundit, politician or internet troll may say, trans people are an indispensable part of our living reality.

Transgender humans represent the complexity and diversity that are fundamental features of life, evolution and nature itself. That is a fact.

Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia - Scientific American Blog Network

It's worth reading the whole article. By declaring that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," and by declaring that this "essential characteristic" is binary, the Church has made a truth claim that is both false and harmful.

Edited January 4, 2022 by Analytics

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I have no clue. Except that they do exist.

I don't think that science is really saying that though. I mean, you and I know that they exist because we see and hear people who are transgender.  We don't use science (as it's generally understood) to gain that knowledge though.

[california boy]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Actually the profiles only show posts for the last year nowadays.  I noticed this some months ago and was rather ticked off as that left only google and it does not catch all posts, or even close to all of a poster’s activity at times the further one goes back (added:  looks like a minority even if recent).  Clicking on his activity brings 10 pages with 25 posts each and an 11th page of 14 posts if I counted correctly.  That would make a total of 264 posts in the last year, leaving 13 posts unaccounted for, I believe.  Since moderators don’t usually hide posts unless they are vulgar iirc, my guess is the 13 posts were posted sometime before Jan 4, 20210 and Sept 2017 or whenever he registered on the board (I am going from memory here, so it may not be Sept).  I don’t know if google doesn’t search on the names attached to the posts and only when the name is cited in another’s post, such as with the quote function, but google did not bring up any older than a year BRMC’s posts, so I can’t confirm my calculation that he has 13 posts prior to a year ago is correct. (Looking at the google hits…about 40, so about 1 in 6 postsappeared to be identified, some are quoting “BRMC enthusiast” which is a rank, though not his current one, so at least some hits do not require being quoted)

Thanks for taking the time researching this.  I don't usually pay much attention to this kind of stuff.  And it is not worth arguing over.  But I do like truthfulness.

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Thanks for taking the time researching this.  I don't usually pay much attention to this kind of stuff.  And it is not worth arguing over.  But I do like truthfulness.

It was a good distraction yesterday. 

[Nofear]

"Gender is an essential characteristic of Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness"

I believe and accept this statement as true. What I don't have, however, is logical justification for that position.

Theologically I believe there was a self-existent part of us that we call "intelligence" and for me it is most logical to assume an uncreate entity is a monad and as a consequence sex or gender is not part of that existence. At some point in the finite past our Heavenly Parents organized a spirit body to go with our intelligence. It is then that sex and gender show up.*

The question is why our divine species/race has a gender binary? I quite suspect it was a deliberate choice by the exalted society (and perhaps they could have chosen one or three or different gender setups). And by choice, I mean choice. I think exalted beings could have fashioned bodies with four fingers instead of five, double kneed legs instead of one knee per leg, eyes near our ears instead of front facing, a prehensile tali, etc. In many ways the gender question is just an extension of "why are our bodies the way they are" question with no particular uniqueness to it. But, sex and gender may be the most accessible of the questions at the moment.

So, I guess the question for others is "why?" Why is our divine species organized into a sex binary?

 

* I imagine other members take a different position and the gender is a self-existent property and thus needs no justification. But, I find the concept of self-existent complex entities as silly as "turtles all the way down". Still, it's a position one can take.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

 

Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia - Scientific American Blog Network

 

Another example of the word transphobia being used incorrectly.  True transphobia is an irrational fear of transgender people.  Not agreeing with the transgender position or asserting there are only two genders, gender is eternal and biological gender is established at birth is not a phobia.  Having a view, opinion, and position is not a phobia.

[Nofear]

2 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Another example of the word transphobia being used incorrectly.  True transphobia is an irrational fear of transgender people.  Not agreeing with the transgender position or asserting there are only two genders, gender is eternal and biological gender is established at birth is not a phobia.  Having a view, opinion, and position is not a phobia.

While I agree with the sentiment and that you rightly condemn to promiscuous use of [blank]phobia... having the view that spiders are to be feared greatly, the opinion that they are out to cause humans pain, and the position that they are to be despised and destroyed casually could potentially be a sign of genuine arachnophobia.