Family proclamation founded on irrevocable doctrine: President Oaks

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

This wasn't directed at me, but I would say that the intersex person's "eternal gender" (proclamation definition) is unambiguous and clear (and eternal), but the "phenotypical" manifestation in mortality is ambiguous and unclear

If gender can be unclear, doesn’t that mean the physical expression of gender in mortality does not necessarily have to match the eternal gender nature?

Edited April 5, 2022 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Good on them and I support them in their choices. 

What about those intersex people who want to marry?  Should they be forbidden because we don't know what eternal gender they are?  It seems that President Oaks wants to blame Satan for their confused gender.  That doesn't seem fair or right, nor based on unchanging eternal doctrine. 

What’s the official position of the Church on this (asking sincerely, as I don’t know). I’m inclined to trust the inspiration of Church leaders on such nettlesome problems. 
 

But what proportion of the population does this even apply to?

[T-Shirt]

20 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Like when a rapist is required to marry their victim and pay off the father for his lost profits? Through most of the Bible, marriage is a transaction between men to purchase women for sex and children. I guess you could call that sacred if you want, but don't start pushing your modern notions of marriage onto the Bible. Marriage wasn't considered a sacred ceremony/sacrament until 16th century, and this was just 3 centuries after they starting thinking that consent for those being married was a good thing.

That is utter nonsense and a terrible argument.

Quote

Maybe I have no idea what you mean by "marriage" here. Please explain.

Uhhh... they were married.

Quote

I should also add that debating whether Adam and Eve were actually married is rather silly, since there was never a pair of naked humans made out of clay talking to snakes in a magical garden guarded by angels with flaming swords in Missouri six thousand or so years ago (or as far back as you want to go.)

This is truly bizarre.  You are here arguing that Adam and Eve were not married when you don't believe they even existed.

Edited April 5, 2022 by T-Shirt

[pogi]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Angry at them but not judging them. Not sure how that works exactly. 

I never claimed that I didn't judged them.  I judged them of recklessly placing other peoples lives at risk.  The fact that they were dismissing the prophet's counsel was not part of my judgment - except in judging them of being hypocritical.    Contrary to what many think, judging when others do wrong is not a sin. 

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not claiming a creed (interesting use of potentially inflammatory terminology there). But when the entire First Presidency and Twelve issues a signed proclamation (there have only been a handful published in the history of the Church) I tend to take it seriously. 

Are you accusing me of not taking it seriously?  Claiming that it is a codified and authoritative declaration of eternal doctrine which directs our religious practice and which will not and cannot change (creed) is more than just taking it seriously.  You are making an unfounded claim here.  Again, history shows that unanimous and consistent teachings of "doctrines" can and do change in time. 

Edited April 5, 2022 by pogi

[T-Shirt]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What’s the official position of the Church on this (asking sincerely, as I don’t know). I’m inclined to trust the inspiration of Church leaders on such nettlesome problems. 
 

38.7.7

Individuals Whose Sex at Birth Is Not Clear

In extremely rare circumstances, a baby is born with genitals that are not clearly male or female (ambiguous genitalia, sexual ambiguity, or intersex). Parents or others may have to make decisions to determine their child’s sex with the guidance of competent medical professionals. Decisions about proceeding with medical or surgical intervention are often made in the newborn period. However, they can be delayed unless they are medically necessary.

Special compassion and wisdom are required when youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity experience emotional conflict regarding the gender decisions made in infancy or childhood and the gender with which they identify.

Questions about membership records, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances for youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity should be directed to the Office of the First Presidency.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What’s the official position of the Church on this (asking sincerely, as I don’t know). I’m inclined to trust the inspiration of Church leaders on such nettlesome problems.

 

Quote

38.7.7

Individuals Whose Sex at Birth Is Not Clear

In extremely rare circumstances, a baby is born with genitals that are not clearly male or female (ambiguous genitalia, sexual ambiguity, or intersex). Parents or others may have to make decisions to determine their child’s sex with the guidance of competent medical professionals. Decisions about proceeding with medical or surgical intervention are often made in the newborn period. However, they can be delayed unless they are medically necessary.

Special compassion and wisdom are required when youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity experience emotional conflict regarding the gender decisions made in infancy or childhood and the gender with which they identify.

Questions about membership records, priesthood ordination, and temple ordinances for youth or adults who were born with sexual ambiguity should be directed to the Office of the First Presidency.

 

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But what proportion of the population does this even apply to?

Why should that matter?  Do you think that matters to the intersex individual or their parents?   

 

[teddyaware]

48 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Gay people are not the only people who have challenges or there are teachings that might be considered by some to be "harmful."  We all have our favorite sins, habits, or tendencies that are harmed by the gospel.  That is because we are sent here to deal with and overcome if possible our challenges.  There are some who think God should carve out special exceptions for them so they can be accommodated.  In the perspective of the gospel, we are all born with stuff that goes against the laws of God.  The natural man is an enemy to God thing.   We are to put off the natural man and conform to things to the will of God.  That means we have to sacrifice.  Might have to endure some discomfort or pain.  Might not get all of our wishes during this short period we are alive in this mortal existence. 

I am sure the whole idea and teaching to Jesus that he has to perform the atonement was a harmful teaching to him.  He did not want to do it but instead of negotiating a compromise with the Father, he sacrificed his will to the Father.   We will not have to deal with such uncomfortable and harmful realities that Jesus had to accept and follow but we have our own issues.  We are left with the choice to follow and sacrifice or demand be changed for us be made because we don't want to change or sacrifice.

Excellent post!

Many of the endless controversies that continue to drag on and on this board could finally come to resolution if it could only be understood that exceedingly difficult sacrificial tests of obedience lie at the very heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the context of this discussion, those with same sex attraction who keep the law of chastity by faithfully emulating the awe inspiring example of the atoning Lord Jesus Christ,  by doing the Father’s will and not their own, will be rewarded with knowledge and divine powering great glory  far beyond human comprehension. Endless happiness is the he eternal reward for those who demonstrate such magnificent trust and faithfulness. And though the need for such great sacrifices of will may not be fully comprehended in this life, they will be perfectly understood, appreciated and greatly honored at the time of the final judgment.

The Savior himself said that for some strong sexual desires would have to be sacrificed on the alter of obedience in order to exit this fallen state of existence triumphantly. Until the ineluctable need for the law of sacrifice is accepted, many here will continue to stumble in the dark while mistakenly thinking they’re being kind and compassionate as they continue to excuse violations of the will of God?  And for as long as those who excuse sin remain unable to accept the absolute necessity for obedience to the holy law of sacrifice that requires the surrender of one’s individual will to the will of God, they will remain in turmoil without inner peace and joyful reconciliation  with God.

12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19)

[Avatar4321]

On 4/4/2022 at 4:40 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

If your  Church ever accepts ssm, wouldn't there need to be a direct revelation from God to your incumbent prophet? 

Of course there would need to be a revelation, but it’s never going to happen

[the narrator]

25 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

45 minutes ago, the narrator said:

Like when a rapist is required to marry their victim and pay off the father for his lost profits? Through most of the Bible, marriage is a transaction between men to purchase women for sex and children. I guess you could call that sacred if you want, but don't start pushing your modern notions of marriage onto the Bible. Marriage wasn't considered a sacred ceremony/sacrament until 16th century, and this was just 3 centuries after they starting thinking that consent for those being married was a good thing.

That is utter nonsense and a terrible argument.

Where am I wrong?

 

26 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Quote

Maybe I have no idea what you mean by "marriage" here. Please explain.

Uhhh... they were married.

And what does that mean to you?

 

27 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

This is truly bizarre.  You are here arguing that Adam and Eve were not married when you don't believe they even existed.

I can argue about the text, silly.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I also remember see studies showing homosexual couples (particularly biological female based) are more violent than straight couples

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506/full

Quote

Life-time prevalence of IPV in LGB couples appeared to be similar to or higher than in heterosexual ones: 61.1% of bisexual women, 43.8% of lesbian women, 37.3% of bisexual men, and 26.0% of homosexual men experienced IPV during their life, while 35.0% of heterosexual women and 29.0% of heterosexual men experienced IPV. When episodes of severe violence were considered, prevalence was similar or higher for LGB adults (bisexual women: 49.3%; lesbian women: 29.4%; homosexual men: 16.4%) compared to heterosexual adults (heterosexual women: 23.6%; heterosexual men: 13.9%) (Breiding et al., 2013).

Messinger (2011) highlighted that all forms of abuse were more likely to occur in homosexual and bisexual couples than in heterosexual ones. Moreover, he hypothesized that a higher percentage violence was caused by unique risk factors linked to minority stress that is experienced only by LGB people. In addition, the study highlighted that lesbian women were at higher risk of being involved in IPV, followed by heterosexual women, gay men, and heterosexual men. Furthermore, bisexual people appeared to be the most abused group compared to the others; bisexual women, specifically, were more likely to be victims of every type of IPV, excluding psychological IPV.

 

[rongo]

41 minutes ago, pogi said:

What exactly is the "proclamation definition" of gender and exactly what revelatory and unchanging doctrine is that definition founded upon?   The definition seems to equate gender with premortal/postmortal sex. 

"All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Each is a son --- or daughter when created. 

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

The "eternal gender" of intersex individuals is "unambiguous and clear" to whom? 

To us in mortality. Not to God. And, not to the intersex individual in the resurrection. For the very small number of people this affects, this burden they were given (or that they chose) in mortality will be resolved, and they will remember and not be constrained by the hurdles of mortality. 

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

If gender is based on sex, what eternal sex are they?  How is that unambiguous and clear?   Gender, for them, can only be based on how they personally identify - because that is all these people have to go on (and they often identify in different ways from each other, even within the same category of intersex).  So, is that the "proclamation definition" of gender - how we personally identify? 

They are whatever eternal sex they were created as as spirits. When the veil is lifted and we remember, it will be unambiguous and clear to everyone. I disagree that how people "personally identify" determines what sex they were created as as spirits.

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

How are they suppose to know if they should marry a man or a woman?  Is it just based on how they personally identify with gender or who they are personally attracted to?  What if they happen to be attracted to their same gender (whatever that is)?  What if they identify their gender wrong?  These things are in NO WAY unambiguous and clear. 

That's a real conundrum, and I believe that true hermaphrodites/intersex people will be judged accordingly. I think in most cases, marriage or normal adult sexual relationships are precluded for most true intersex people (people for whom sex traits are indeterminate). I think this will be factored into how they are judged --- especially if they themselves are truly confused or don't know for sure what sex they actually are. God either gave them this burden, or they chose it themselves, for reasons harking back to the pre-existence that we won't know until the resurrection. 

I think the intersex issue is a red herring, though, because this is a very small number of people in the scheme of things. The exponential explosion of "trans"-identifying teenagers and young adults (high 90s % of which are confused girls, in my experience as a teacher of 20 years) is almost exclusively a social, psychological, and media phenomenon. Almost all of these people are not "intersex" at all. Many of these girls later revert back --- they are confused and being tossed to and fro with social currents, contagion, and influences. It is very sad, and it is wreaking havoc on their psyches, independent of conservative religious teachings. The explosion of gender confusion itself is damaging and troubling to them, and a bigger factor than conservative religious rejection that it is immutable in them. 

[Avatar4321]

On 4/4/2022 at 10:19 AM, JLHPROF said:

I'm seriously wondering why people think a revelation allowing sin will ever be given.

Because they really want it

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think the right/wrong dichotomy in your statements is where you may be getting tripped up in understanding those who hold positions different than yours.  Consider that the prophets may be simply working with the most/best that has been revealed and that continuing revelation will restore additional truths.

I suppose so. The prophets aren't "wrong" on the topic of marriage, they just aren't right or correct.

I recognize that some recognize the authority and authenticity of our latter-day prophets but think they are propagating old modes of thinking that are not in harmony with eternal truths -- not that they fault them for having held such a position as it wouldn't be the first time we humans, including on occasion prophets, have held to not quite eternally correct principles. Some here, very much do fault them. Others (including myself) think that they are correct on the topic of marriage. But, I can sympathize a bit I suppose. There were some things advocated in this last conference which I personally think were not quite bulls-eye correct.

[rongo]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

If gender can be unclear, doesn’t that mean the physical expression of gender in mortality does not necessarily have to match the eternal gender nature?

I think this is undoubtedly the case in the case of true intersex/hermaphrodite people. But even for masculine women or effeminate men, they are still clearly female and male. And they genotype even matches this phenotype (XX or XY). 

I think that the few cases where this is unclear in mortality are a specific chosen element of mortality for that person (by God or by the person).

[the narrator]

Just now, Avatar4321 said:

On 4/4/2022 at 9:19 AM, JLHPROF said:

I'm seriously wondering why people think a revelation allowing sin will ever be given.

Because they really want it

NOBODY IS ASKING FOR A REVELATION ALLOWING SIN.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

President Oaks addressed this in his talk on Sunday. Did you listen to it? Did you read the partial transcription I made and posted on this tread yesterday?

“Consequently [Satan] seeks to oppose progress toward exaltation by distorting marriage, discouraging childbearing or confusing gender. However, we know that in the long run, the divine purpose of our loving Heavenly Father will not be changed. Personal circumstances may change, and God’s plan assures that in the long run, the faithful who keep their covenants will have the opportunity to qualify for every promised blessing. 

(Emphasis mine)

I did not hear him say it nor did I see your transcription.

I don't see how those words answer any of my questions. That statement is essentially a "it will all work out in the end" kind of answer without ever attempting to answer the specific questions. Don't get me wrong. I'm not blaming you for that. But when the brethren deal in such vagaries it naturally creates a space to consider options beyond the current orthodoxy.

I've mentioned this many times before, the church and its leaders have no answer about how LGBTQ+ individuals fit into God's plan. The only possible answer is, "it will all work out in the end". If that is the answer, religion fails. If I asked the question about how I fit into God's plan and the answer was a shoulder shrug, I'd be looking for answers elsewhere.

[Avatar4321]

On 4/4/2022 at 12:18 PM, ttribe said:

Perhaps you are unaware, but sex is biological and gender is a social construct. This issue is apparently lost on Elder Oaks, as well.

This is absolutely nonsense 

[Avatar4321]

6 minutes ago, the narrator said:

NOBODY IS ASKING FOR A REVELATION ALLOWING SIN.

Then you aren’t paying attention

[JLHPROF]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why would we even listen to Satan?

People do it all they time.  We generally don't recognize it's him.

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, the narrator said:

NOBODY IS ASKING FOR A REVELATION ALLOWING SIN.

IF THEY EXPECT A REVELATION ALLOWING SSM THEY ARE.

[the narrator]

7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

14 minutes ago, the narrator said:

NOBODY IS ASKING FOR A REVELATION ALLOWING SIN.

IF THEY EXPECT A REVELATION ALLOWING SSM THEY ARE.

I really don't know why it is that difficult for you to grasp the difference between seeking confirmation that something is actually not a sin (which is what actual real people are doing) and seeking confirmation that something that is still sinful is allowed (which only exists among the strawmen living in the fanciful world occupying your brain).

[JAHS]

21 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

On 4/4/2022 at 2:40 AM, Orthodox Christian said:

If your  Church ever accepts ssm, wouldn't there need to be a direct revelation from God to your incumbent prophet? 

Of course there would need to be a revelation, but it’s never going to happen

Right. This is one of those things that if it were to happen God would cease to be God. And the church would most likely fall.
Marriage between man and woman is an eternal concept, which means it is a law that will not change.
Even though the church made a statement in their opposition to proposition 8 it can tolerate the existence of the practice of ssm as being something for other people who are not members of the church.

 

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

Then you aren’t paying attention

Do you think they are asking for a revelation to allow a behaviour even while believing it is a sin or are they asking for a revelation to allow something that is currently defined as a sin by the Church, but they don’t believe is a sin?

There is a big difference in motivation between the two…

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, the narrator said:

I really don't know why it is that difficult for you to grasp the difference between seeking confirmation that something is actually not a sin (which is what actual real people are doing) and seeking confirmation that something that is still sinful is allowed (which only exists among the strawmen living in the fanciful world occupying your brain).

I understand the difference.
This will never come because we have existing revelation to suit the purpose - ie every single scripture indicating that God's plan is for biological parenthood within a marriage covenant, that husbands are supposed to have wives, that exaltation is reserved for husbands and wives, and so on.

You are looking for new revelation when answers absolutely have already been given.  The only way such a revelation comes is to condemn us.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Right. This is one of those things that if it were to happen God would cease to be God. And the church would most likely fall.
Marriage between man and woman is an eternal concept, which means it is a law that will not change.
Even though the church made a statement in their opposition to proposition 8 it can tolerate the existence of the practice of ssm as being something for other people who are not members of the church.

 

Exactly.
Any revelation stating SSM isn't sinful would be false based on everything we know about revelation and family.