Thoughts on the purported "secularization" of BYU

[smac97]

On 2/26/2025 at 12:01 PM, MrShorty said:

@teddyaware I don't know about others, but I have considered the possibility. Have you considered the possibility that some trans people might awake in the resurrection to find that their body has been fixed to match their sense of eternal gender?

I can't speak for Teddy, but I have given that matter a lot of thought.  I think the generalized answer is "No."  This is based mostly on The Proclamation and its declarations about gender (that is, biological sex) being an eternal characteristic.  That being the case, an unambiguously male person has no need for his body to be "fixed" after the resurrection.  Instead, the thing that may require "fixing" is Gender Dysphoria, which truly seems like a difficult thing in any context, but particularly in the Latter-day Saint paradigm, and particularly in this moment in history, in which sizable numbers of people have succumbed to an ideologically-driven and incoherent and counterfactual notion that denies the sexual binary, and/or that claims sex is a "spectrum," and/or that there can be migration between the sexes, and/or that a man can "become" a woman by "identifying" as one, and so on.

There is a statistically very small number of persons who, in this life, must cope with a DSD that might render their biological sex epistemically uncertain.  In those rare instances, such people "might awake in the resurrection to find that their body has been fixed" to resolve that epistemic uncertainty.

So putting aside the statistically tiny percentage of persons who have a DSD-based unresolvable epistemic uncertainty about their biological sex, there are essentially two possibilities here:

• In Scenario (A), a person has a mental health disorder, or even just a lot of wishful thinking, that leads him to believe that he is a woman trapped in a man's body.  
• In Scenario (B), The Proclamation, and the cumulative counsel of modern prophets and apostles is substantively incorrect, such that "gender" (that is, biological sex) is not "an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

Applying what I understand from basic biological science, and common sense, and my own reasoning and observations, and taking into account highly influential sociopolitical trends and pressures, and applying both scriptural and modern prophetic counsel, I conclude that Scenario (B) is what is going on.

On 2/26/2025 at 12:01 PM, MrShorty said:

AMABs (Assigned Male At Birth) being resurrected as fully functioning females?  AFABs realizing their masculine aspirations were correct all along?

Respectfully, I reject the notion that biological sex is "assigned."

On 2/26/2025 at 12:01 PM, MrShorty said:

Asking people to consider that things will be fixed in the resurrection only works if you, too, are willing to consider that maybe things will be fixed in the resurrection.

I think The Proclamation goes a long way, using a very few words, in addressing this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 17 by smac97

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think it could be used - as a way of correcting any issues here in mortality. I also think that the LDS Church currently has no interest in exploring this option.

I think that the bigger issues are likely the question of whether dysphoria really is the result of a gender/biological sex mismatch. I think that there are some barriers here - not the least of which is the fact that those of us who are older (myself included) and who have not experienced gender dysphoria have a difficult time understanding it, and have a predilection towards skepticism of the diagnosis. If we were to recognize the reality of the diagnosis, and even if we came to believe that transitioning is in some cases a corrective action, we would still need to make some sort of decision about whether or not this would constitute choice in the same way that someone without such a diagnosis deciding to transition would be. Does a genuine case of dysphoria suggest that transitioning isn't entirely voluntary? This is a key question because the position is that a voluntary transition is morally wrong (and involuntary would only be morally neutral). At each point here, the stakes become a little higher - and I think that the Church's current position is to try to avoid wading in to these speculative circumstances, and to try to maintain a policy that allows for as few exceptions as possible. I think that this may be an area where we continue to see shifts and changes over the rest of my lifetime.

Personally, I think an eternal gender / biological sex mismatch is possible*. But because of the “behind-the-veil” origin of gender, it seems to me that only a “brother-of-Jared-like” person might receive anything other than a stupor of thought attempting a confirmation to transition (rather than confirming the morality of the general principle of transitioning). That includes Patriarchs or the First Presidency, and it is okay in my mind if they lack this caliber of revelatory power. As to their thought process, do they lack interest or are they avoiding speculation; are they engaged but recognize their oracular limitations; or do they lack the keys to seal pre-mortal heaven and earth? The policy allows referral to the Office of the First Presidency in any case. I can see why the policy calls for compassion now and with evolving shifts and changes in policy or doctrine.

If anyone were to say they prayed about transitioning and received a confirmation to proceed, and otherwise abide policy, who is anyone to withhold compassion from them?

*I joined the Church in college (1975) and went on a mission after graduating. When I came home, the man who baptized me told me he was “transexual” (his term, back then), a woman in a man’s body. He had hinted at this before, telling me that as a child his mother would let him put on a dress and shoes and so forth, and he felt more comfortable having tea with his great-Aunt than playing baseball. I never took this as anything to be too concerned about (I grew up around the corner from Greenwich Village). But this more direct heart-to-heart was a bit more sobering, and fortunately he had a small network of similarly situated individuals, married and single, who understood these challenges while holding Church leadership callings. This might be the case of a biological man accepting priesthood ordination in good faith.

Edited February 26, 2025 by CV75

[MrShorty]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Personally, I think an eternal gender / biological sex mismatch is possible*. But because of the “behind-the-veil” origin of gender, it seems to me that only a “brother-of-Jared-like” person might receive anything other than a stupor of thought attempting a confirmation to transition (rather than confirming the morality of the general principle of transitioning).

Perhaps that means there are a few "brother-of-Jared-like" people among us? As I follow various LDS transgender support groups, I find many LDS transgender people claiming to receive divine affirmation of their transitions. In her recently published book, Dictates of Conscience, Laurie Lee Hall describes the spiritual experience that confirmed to her that her spirit was female, even if here body is male. She's far from the only one claiming such revelations. Perhaps "brother-of-Jared-like" faith is more common than we think?

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps that means there are a few "brother-of-Jared-like" people among us? As I follow various LDS transgender support groups, I find many LDS transgender people claiming to receive divine affirmation of their transitions. In her recently published book, Dictates of Conscience, Laurie Lee Hall describes the spiritual experience that confirmed to her that her spirit was female, even if here body is male. She's far from the only one claiming such revelations. Perhaps "brother-of-Jared-like" faith is more common than we think?

I think that is up to you to set up a criteria and process to decide, and then decide what to do with that decision. I hope you can see that my post wasn't at all about the number of "brother-of-Jared-like" people that might be among us, or how common that kind of faith may be.

[manol]

8 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Did you ever consider the possibly that the Family Proclamation is absolutely correct, but that the problematic things that trouble you concerning gender (such as biologically androgynous individuals) are all consequences of the fallen nature, and when the fallen nature is overcome in the holy resurrection these difficulties that presently seem so impossibly intractable will no longer have to be dealt with because Lord is going to heal his creation and puts all things into their proper order? 

I am open to the possibility of "on earth as it is in Heaven" happening well before the resurrection.  What that looks like I do not yet know; whether the Proclamation on the Family plays a role in that I do not yet know; but I think that ours are the hearts and hands God works through here on earth.

 

Edited February 27, 2025 by manol

[Doctor Steuss]

@CV75 and/or @MrShorty (or anyone else familiar with the term in the current context).

I apologize for my ignorance (and inability to piece it together), but what exactly is meant by "Brother-of-Jared-like" in this context?

[smac97]

On 2/26/2025 at 3:14 PM, MrShorty said:

Perhaps that means there are a few "brother-of-Jared-like" people among us?

Not sure what you mean here.

On 2/26/2025 at 3:14 PM, MrShorty said:

As I follow various LDS transgender support groups,

I wonder how much of this "support" is borne more of A) prioritizing modern sociopolitical trends and/or subjective gender dysphoric perceptions over the Restored Gospel, B) wishful thinking and wanting to tell each other what they want to hear more than what they need or ought to hear, C) some combination of A and B.  I should probably examine this first-hand.

On 2/26/2025 at 3:14 PM, MrShorty said:

I find many LDS transgender people claiming to receive divine affirmation of their transitions. In her recently published book, Dictates of Conscience, Laurie Lee Hall describes the spiritual experience that confirmed to her that her spirit was female, even if here body is male. She's far from the only one claiming such revelations. Perhaps "brother-of-Jared-like" faith is more common than we think?

I have found this comment from Michael Ash very helpful:

Quote

In a previous installment I explained that Roman Catholics take a three-legged tripod-like approach to determining truth—Scripture, Tradition, and the Pope. I believe that we Latter-day Saints are asked to take a four-legged approach to truth, like the four legs of a stool. These would include: Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true.

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation.  Utilizing all four "legs" is, in my view, a far more reliable mechanism for discerning truth than relying on just one of them exclusively.

For example, this 2019 news item about Pres. Oaks merits attention:

Quote

“While God’s commandments forbid all unchaste behavior and reaffirm the importance of marriage between a man and a woman, the Church and its faithful members should reach out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same sex or whose sexual orientation or gender identity is inconsistent with their sex at birth,” President Oaks taught. “We do not know why same-sex attraction and confusion about sexual identity occur,” he continued. “They are among the challenges that persons can experience in mortality, which is only a tiny fraction of our eternal existence.”

President Oaks spoke of three fundamental doctrinal truths that God has revealed:

“First, … that God created ‘male and female,’” and that this “binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.”

“Second, modern revelation teaches that eternal life, the greatest gift of God to His children, is only possible through the creative powers inherent in the combination of male and female joined in an eternal marriage (see Doctrine and Covenants 132:19). That is why the law of chastity is so important.”

“Finally, the long-standing doctrinal statements reaffirmed in [The Family: A Proclamation to the World] 23 years ago will not change. They may be clarified as directed by inspiration.” For example, “the intended meaning of gender in the family proclamation and as used in Church statements and publications since that time is biological sex at birth.”

“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.”

Laurie Lee Hall (f/k/a Larry Lee Hall) called Pres. Oaks' statements "a dark day for transgender Latter-day Saints."  I respect and appreciate this perspective, but I don't feel obligated to privilege Hall's subjective claims above revealed truths, modern prophetic counsel (particularly, but not exclusively, The Proclamation and Pres. Oaks' reasoned and scripture-based discourse), and my own reasoning and assessment.

As Bro. Ash puts it: "Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true."  This isn't the first time we've seen someone set aside scripture, prophetic counsel, etc. in favor of a countervailing claim of "personal revelation."  

And as Elder McConkie put it, "Truth is ever in harmony with itself."  It can be a difficult thing to set aside strongly-held notions and submit revealed truths.  It is also a largely personalized thing.  Apart from noting the apparent contradiction in Hall's claims of "personal revelation" with The Proclamation and modern prophetic counsel, and from not acquiescing to such claims in my own views, I have no particular interest in assessing these claims.  We all must proceed as we see fit.  I will do my best to utilize all four of the tools noted by Bro. Ash, even when doing so yields a sociopolitically unpopular result.  As Latter-day Saints, we should expect this sort of thing to happen when applying the principles of the Restored Gospel in this fallen and increasingly turbulent world.

Thanks,

-Smac 

Edited February 28, 2025 by smac97

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

@CV75 and/or @MrShorty (or anyone else familiar with the term in the current context).

I apologize for my ignorance (and inability to piece it together), but what exactly is meant by "Brother-of-Jared-like" in this context?

I assumed at first he meant a face to face encounter with Christ, an actual visitation.  But not sure now.

[Calm]

8 hours ago, smac97 said:

And as Elder McConkie put it, "Truth is ever in harmony with itself."

But partial truths are not always.  Think of Quantum Mechanics vs General Relativity, a result of the choices of which data (partial truths if it’s reliable) is chosen to focus on.

And continuing revelation logically requires that some of the truths being taught now are partial truths and if so, it makes sense that mistakes will be made when we try and fill in the gaps with reason and personal experience (personally I think mortality requires only partial truths exist for us, we can never fully comprehend even narrowly applied truths because we are not aware of the full experience, just as we never can truly ‘see’ an object because our visual information is limited to visible light).  This applies to traditional interpretations as well as newer ones.  The alleged Priesthood Ban being seen as a complete enough truth and turning out not to be much revelation at all and more opinion and interpretation of Brigham Young and others if one looks as the early discussions of it is evidence imo of where partial truths—Joseph’s counsel about slaves—got added to by faulty reasoning based in part on baggage brought into our faith of misinterpretations of scripture—historical justifications of the slave trade—and on outright lies by Smoot and Coltrin is a good example of why we need to be cautious about conclusions of what ultimate Truth actually is.  In this case scripture was misinterpreted, reason was biased, and a prophet was thought to have given revelation when he stated opinion.

I am not claiming this failure of the ‘four legged stool’ due to at least three broken legs is a common occurrence or because of it we should lose our confidence completely in the overall process.  I am just pointing out what amounts to tradition (in the case of the Ban, interpretation of scripture as about Africans and slavery being their God given role was tradition, reason was heavily influenced by tradition thought based on bigotry, perception of Brigham’s decision to ban being based on revelation rather than his personal opinion became the traditional view) tends to have a major impact on our perception of Truth and sometimes the consequences of this influence is tragic…and therefore we should be at least moderately cautious in our appraisals of traditional truths.

I also think we should be extra cautious in embracing new interpretations as ultimate truth.  I think a great example of where more caution should have been used for new interpretations is the change in general church attitudes towards scholarship as a negative that occurred in part due to the strong opinions presented as Truth by Joseph Fielding Smith.  He appears to have ignored and even criticized and misrepresented (claiming Talmage’s presentation was unauthorized) the more traditional approach of the First Presidency, who openly promoted scientific interpretations over what we now call fundamentalist ones—which as I understand were more the newer kid on the block at that time (see last link)—to the point where not only did they have James Talmage teach science over the pulpit in the Tabernacle, but they had published tens of thousands reprints of his presentation to pass out in addition to it being published in the Church British magazine and they had called not only Talmage as an apostle but two other scientifically inclined men, Lyman and Widtsoe, as apostles and directed the Quorum to work with a BYU scientist***.  We are still dealing in the Church with many of the negative consequences imo of Joseph Fielding Smith’s over confidence in his own interpretation of Truth (just look at the current OT Institute manual, though hopefully I won’t be using that example much longer).

***https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference/august-2021old/through-a-glass-less-darkly

https://benspackman.com/2023/08/the-power-of-good-historiography-or-how-joseph-fielding-smith-unwittingly-undermined-joseph-fielding-smith/

https://benspackman.com/2020/09/interpreting-science-and-scripture-joseph-fielding-smith-seventh-day-adventists-and-hermeneutics-in-lds-history/

I may not have included the page where Ben talks specifically about the conflict, including the committee formed and directed to work with the prof, I can look for it later if I haven’t and someone wants it.

Edited February 28, 2025 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation. 

On the subject of gender dysphoria, and whether the gender of “souls” from the “preexistence” match the biological sex of their body, the scriptures are utterly silent. As for reason? In a fallen world filled with horror, reason tells me it would be really odd that God would allow all types of genetic horrors and deformities but draw the line at the sry gene (or whatever specific sex trait you claim must match eternal gender). That leaves personal revelation vs prophetic counsel does it not? That stool doesn’t look too sturdy. 

[Senator]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

On the subject of gender dysphoria, and whether the gender of “souls” from the “preexistence” match the biological sex of their body, the scriptures are utterly silent. As for reason? In a fallen world filled with horror, reason tells me it would be really odd that God would allow all types of genetic horrors and deformities but draw the line at the sry gene (or whatever specific sex trait you claim must match eternal gender). That leaves personal revelation vs prophetic counsel does it not? That stool doesn’t look too sturdy. 

I find the four legged stool analogy to be a little silly.  It really is only a two legged stool, scriptures and prophetic counsel.  We include personal revelation and reason in there to, well, not sound culty, but we only give lip service them.  

If all four legs are not in harmony, is it ever in the cards to question the prophetic counsel or scripture(interpretation) as possibly not correct?  Not in LDS teachings,  only the PR or reasoning must be suspect.

[smac97]

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

The other legs of the stool (scripture, prophets and reason) function well in "vetting" personal revelation. 

On the subject of gender dysphoria, and whether the gender of “souls” from the “preexistence” match the biological sex of their body, the scriptures are utterly silent.

Well, no.  Several passages strongly reinforce the idea that God intentionally creates individuals as male or female in both body and spirit.  Genesis 1:27.  Genesis 2:22-24.  Job 38:6-7.  Matthew 22:30.  Matthew 19:4-5.  Revelation 21:3-4.  Luke 24:39.  

Any in any event, modern prophets and apostles have not been silent.  The Proclamation.  Pres. Oaks' statement quoted previously.  And so on.

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

As for reason?

This also militates against the notion of "woman born in a man's body."

In a similar vein, reason militates against "Stefoknee Wolscht," a biological male in his 50s, being a perpetual six-year-old girl, Eva Tiamat Medusa "identifying" as a trans woman/dragon, Naia Ōkami "identifying" as a wolf, and so on.  

Reasonable minds can disagree about such things, though.  I acknowledge that.  Hence the value of the other three tools.

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In a fallen world filled with horror,

You believe this?  That we live in "a fallen world," that is?

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

reason tells me it would be really odd that God would allow all types of genetic horrors and deformities but draw the line at the sry gene (or whatever specific sex trait you claim must match eternal gender).

Hence the value of the other three tools mentioned by Bro. Ash.

Hence also the value of The Proclamation:

Quote

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.

The Latter-day Saint paradigm offers substantial clarity, even certainty.  I am grateful for that.

Whether an individual accepts it or not is, of course, up to him.  

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That leaves personal revelation vs prophetic counsel does it not?

It does not.  All four tools are still in play.

Also, the notion of "personal revelation vs {that is, 'versus,' as in 'against'} prophetic counsel" is, or ought to be, pretty telling, at least, in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.

Claims of "personal revelation" are, I think, the most susceptible to confusion and misuse.  A person can be deceive in such matters, or can intentionally deceive by claiming "personal revelation" where no such thing has happened, or by confusing and conflating strongly-held feelings/preferences and/or mental health disorders as "personal revelation."  Hence the value of using all four of the tools referenced by Bro. Ash.

I greatly value personal revelation, particularly when examined in the light of scripture, modern prophetic counsel, and reason.

22 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That stool doesn’t look too sturdy. 

A one-legged stool is markedly less sturdy than a four-legged one.  In the end, though, a good measure of faith is required.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2025 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Also, the notion of "personal revelation vs {that is, 'versus,' as in 'against'} prophetic counsel" is, or ought to be, pretty telling, at least, in the Latter-day Saint paradigm.

 

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Claims of "personal revelation" are, I think, the most susceptible to confusion and misuse.

And here we get to the crux. Personal revelation is a pretty horrible way to discover truth. On that we are 100% in agreement. 

[smac97]

22 hours ago, Senator said:

I find the four legged stool analogy to be a little silly. 

It's not my analogy.  I do find it apt, tho.

22 hours ago, Senator said:

It really is only a two legged stool, scriptures and prophetic counsel. 

I don't think so.  Personal revelation and individual reasoning are amply attested to in scripture and prophetic counsel.

22 hours ago, Senator said:

We include personal revelation and reason in there to, well, not sound culty, but we only give lip service them.

Well, no.  These things are extensively addressed in the Church's teachings.

22 hours ago, Senator said:

If all four legs are not in harmony, is it ever in the cards to question the prophetic counsel or scripture (interpretation) as possibly not correct? 

While this is unlikely, it's within the realm of possibility.

By way of example: Some years ago I served as my ward's bishop, during which time I formulated an idea of having the young women in our ward provider welcoming/ushering services during Sacrament Meeting.  I felt pretty good about it, and approached my stake president to see if he had any concern about it.  He said no.  We had a discussion about it, as I had understood that there was no scriptural prohibition against it, nor was it addressed in the Handbook, nor had the concept been addressed by the Brethren (at least, as far as I could see).  The stake president said he felt that "ushering" was a priesthood function (apparently per D&C 84:111 and/or D&C 107:68, though I'm not sure he had these passages specifically in mind).

So, where the "four legs" in harmony?  Not exactly.  The scriptures were (mostly) silent on the issue, and I could not find any specific prophetic counsel on the topic.  What I could see, however, was clear instruction in both scripture and modern prophetic counsel in matters of stewardship and authority.  Consequently, I deferred to the stake president and did not implement the proposal.

Fast-forward several years, and the Church amended its policies in August 2024 to direct that "Young Women class presidents now organize the youth to welcome visitors and members to sacrament meeting (see 11.3.4.2 and 29.2.1.3)."

So was I right or wrong in my course of action?  Should I have disregarded my SP's instruction and implemented the policy anyway, given that the Church eventually came around to it?  In my view, no.  "{S}ee that all these things are done in wisdom and order."  (Mosiah 4:27.)

As to "big ticket" items, such as addressing matters of sexuality and gender, I think we in the Church are endowed with lots of counsel, both in scripture and modern prophetic counsel.  I think our efforts at utilizing reason and seeking personal revelation should be in conjunction with these resources, not sought in contravention of ("versus") them.  Each of us is, of course, "free to choose" (2 Nephi 2:27).

22 hours ago, Senator said:

Not in LDS teachings, only the PR or reasoning must be suspect.

Well, no.  The Brethren have acknowledged that they can err, and that we as individuals and as a community can err in interpreting scriptures.  However, I think these resources are overwhelmingly strong and helpful, particularly when someone is potentially compromised in their reasoning and/or capacity to discern revelation (such as by being caught up in pretty intensive sociopolitical trends touching on sexuality and gender).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2025 by smac97

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And here we get to the crux. Personal revelation is a pretty horrible way to discover truth.

It's a pretty wonderful way to discover truth, particularly when used in tandem with scripture, modern prophetic counsel, and reason.

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

On that we are 100% in agreement. 

I don't think we are.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 27, 2025 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a pretty wonderful way to discovery truth,

Except when you get the wrong answer. Sounds pretty circular. 

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

It's a pretty wonderful way to discover truth,

Except when you get the wrong answer. Sounds pretty circular. 

It is not the sole way to discover truth, as it is intended to be used in tandem with scripture, prophetic counsel and reason.

If someone gets "the wrong answer" via personal revelation, it is likely because the individual is disregarding these other resources.

thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

@CV75 and/or @MrShorty (or anyone else familiar with the term in the current context).

I apologize for my ignorance (and inability to piece it together), but what exactly is meant by "Brother-of-Jared-like" in this context?

This is how I used the term:

The "veil" which was removed from the brother of Jared's eyes in Ether 3 is a term used to convey our natural inability to see spiritual things, past, present and future. Seeing "within the veil" or having it "taken from off the eyes" conveys the outcome of faith and knowledge (which are two sides of the same spiritual coin). The brother of Jared was of such spiritual caliber that he did this, seemingly to his own and the Lord's mutual surprise and to an extent the Lord told him this experience was the result of his "such exceeding faith."

The brother of Jared saw into the premortal world (the spirit of Jesus) and yet could see Him in the future flesh, or maybe it was just a realization that He would appear in the flesh, interpreted as the current state. This experience was the result of exceeding faith, which produced perfect knowledge (at least on this particular point) and led to being shown "all the inhabitants of the earth which had been, and also all that would be," the premortal world being a component of both reference points. It is noteworthy o me that the brother of Jared wasn't praying about what the Lod looked like, but asking Him a favor on a completely different matter (hence the surprise).

So, someone receiving a revelation that their eternal gender as a spirit (or in the resurrected state) does not match their current biological sex would likewise need to have the veil removed to compare the premortal, current and future states of their body with a perfect knowledge, and to be otherwise faithfully engaged in realizing the covenanted promises of the Lord through discipleship and hard work (Ether 2).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If someone gets "the wrong answer" via personal revelation, it is likely because the individual is disregarding these other resources.

Exactly! The right answer is already there. The role of the spirit is just to confirm the right (ie church’s) answer. If your spiritual witness doesn’t do so you’re doing it wrong. 

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Exactly! The right answer is already there.

The "right answer" is likely to be found when all four resources are used.

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The role of the spirit is just to confirm the right (ie church’s) answer.

"Just."  What a horrible, candle-snuffing word.

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If your spiritual witness doesn’t do so you’re doing it wrong. 

In most instances, yes.

If "your spiritual witness" is telling you to commit adultery, or steal from your neighbor, or to kill with malice, etc., then there's a pretty solid chance "you're doing it {personal revelation} wrong."  Do you feel otherwise?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 28, 2025 by smac97

[Senator]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In most instances, yes.

 

In the instances that you are not doing it wrong, then what?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

I find the four legged stool analogy to be a little silly.  It really is only a two legged stool, scriptures and prophetic counsel.  We include personal revelation and reason in there to, well, not sound culty, but we only give lip service them.  

If all four legs are not in harmony, is it ever in the cards to question the prophetic counsel or scripture(interpretation) as possibly not correct?  Not in LDS teachings,  only the PR or reasoning must be suspect.

There is a difference between personally questioning and trying to steady the ark.

I personally question some of the moves away from some pioneer era teachings and policies, but it's not my job to run around trying to get people on my side and publicly question the Keyholders. If they have erred God will correct the situation in His way and in His time. The people of Israel still had to take their sacrifices to Eli's sons, even when Eli's sons were in gross sin. The men holding the keys now are far superior to that lot, even if they are not perfect.

My job is to live the commandments and do the work for my ancestors in the House of the Lord.

Edited February 28, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Senator said:

We include personal revelation and reason in there to, well, not sound culty, but we only give lip service them.  

I think that depends on how you define reason.  Scripture interpretation is often based on reason, for example.  Not always great reason, often traditional reasoning.  Personal revelation is more about us. Can be used a lot in daily life and looking at our own lives ourselves. It doesn’t work well when engaging with others unless you have priesthood line of authority (like a bishop) and even then the handbook allows for a person’s personal view to be given priority in many cases (birth control for example, back early marriage thankfully my bishop didn’t push his view on me).

Edited February 28, 2025 by Calm

[Senator]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

There is a difference between personally questioning and trying to steady the ark.

True 

We haven’t been talking about the latter 

[MiserereNobis]

On 2/25/2025 at 12:28 PM, smac97 said:

Meanwhile, the ontological reality is there, even if it's not discernible through current medical means

The Catholic view of transubstantiation!