- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This is going to be a grossly over-simplistic summary of a fuller, long, complex description of the central issue as I see it. I beleive LDS theology has a unique way to understand and accept sexual and gender ambiguity in mortality, and I wish church leaders could embrace that uniqueness. I am NOT saying this approach is factual or scientific, but I believe it still could be powerful.
Mormonism teaches that every person existed prior to mortal birth as a spiritual entity. It teaches that we don’t know when a spirit enters a mortal body – just that it happens at some point prior to birth.
Biology teaches quite clearly that biological sex (natal sex) is not determined immediately upon conception – that it takes a bit to develop and be apparent. Biology also teaches that there are more than two natal sexes, the most common being intersex (people born with ambiguous genitalia). There also are people whose apparent natal sexes do not match their chromosomal structures. (for example, people who appear to be male but have XX chromosomes, and vice-versa) There also are people who have extraordinary / abnormal amounts of estrogen or testosterone for their natal sex.
It is possible to take the idea of the majority of spirits being born into physical bodies that match a spiritual “sex/gender”, while a minority of spirits are born into physical bodies that do not match in that way. This minority could recognize their “spiritual gender” as being different than their “natal sex” – based on any number of biological circumstances. This possibility could allow the LDS Church to accept people for whom they feel deeply they are, support them as they strive to be whom they beleive they are, and leave the “judgment” in the hands of God. Sexual and gender ambiguity could be chalked up to the effects of the Fall, and our 2nd Article of Faith could be used to say nobody will be punished for those effects and how they choose to handle them.
I do not beleive this is the ideal conclusion, since I prefer accepting people for whom they feel they are even without a religious justification, but our unique theology at least gives us a way to address these issues in a charitable way. “We don’t know in each individual case, so we support people in their self-identifications and efforts to be whom they beleive they are.” I wish those who need a theological justification could choose a charitable one over the harsh, rigid, factually inaccurate version that currently dominates our discourse – and our theology is unique enough to provide such a justification.
My big problem with this fashionable line of thinking is that it usually ends up suggesting that cisgender men are innately evil and oppressive. Curt, you need to forward this to the First Presidency. Then all of us on StayLDS need to fast and pray that they see things as clearly as you have explained them. What a logical and charitable way to look at the issue! :thumbup: SamBee, I honestly don’t see the connection to views of toxic masculinity – nor do I see what I wrote as “fashionable”. I also don’t want to have the comments veer off into a discussion of either of those points, so I want to ask that it not do so.
Very well written. I am with Katspur, this needs to travel up, somehow. I don’t fully or even slightly comprehend gender things. What I do know is that Down Syndrome has never been dismissed. We know that “stuff” can happen. No matter what the Divine intent was. People are born blind, with missing limbs, deaf, with heart issues, lung issues, etc. This means to me, anything is possible.
I agree this is well written and from a Latter-day Saint theological standpoint the possibility of this point of view exists. I certainly wouldn’t encourage anyone to share this with the Q15 unless they were someone who had nothing to lose – I’m pretty sure at least some of them would see this as an apostate point of view. On the other hand, I think we can only really get in trouble for teaching apostate points of view, not believing them (but it could jeopardize things like temple recommends). I’m still a little stuck on the line from Pres. Oaks about “biological sex at birth.” I’m not sure what he meant by that and the general public doesn’t have full context for it. However, isn’t it also possible that gender is not as eternal as our theology might suppose? Isn’t it possible the theologians are wrong in this case and gender is only biological and only while we’re here? I recognize that many people prefer the “black and white” and “either/or” point of view on most things, and I was once very black and white myself. But like most things there seems to be room for other than that point of view.
Old Timer wrote:
SamBee, I honestly don’t see the connection to views of toxic masculinity – nor do I see what I wrote as “fashionable”.I also don’t want to have the comments veer off into a discussion of either of those points, so I want to ask that it not do so.
It always heads in that direction. Anything to stop the nu left discussing the real problem in society which is social class.
I’m afraid what you wrote is “fashionable”. It’s definitely the topic du jour. You could dig up examples from philosophers in the seventies and eighties, but it definitely wasn’t mainstream like it is now.
Genuinely intersex people are extremely uncommon. Much more so than contemporary wisdom would have you believe.
Sometimes we look to our theology to understand how we should behave. Other times we look to our theology to justify how we behave or want to behave. Many things are a mixture of both. The bible was used to justify slavery for many Christians … until slavey was gone and the need to defend it didn’t exist anymore.
Sometimes our theology can be interpreted in a more creative way that is not orthodox but can instead illuminate a possible path forward for change agents and defenders (explorers and settlers) alike. Eugene England was a good example of this.
This post is my way of looking at our theology and how it can frame conversations regarding biological sex and gender. There is no other focus in it. Let’s stick to that topic only.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.