Elder Oaks Defines "Gender" for Us - In His Usual Bigoted Way

[Hagoth]

One thing we do know is that transgender people have been around a long time, they have openly coexisted in many non-western cultures, and thay were often respected, valued, and even considered uniquely chosen by deity for a special calling. It was the British Empire that first began marginalizing and demeaning these people in places that fell under their rule. Check out the hijra communies of India for one example.

Even if it weren't biological and merely a choice, wouldn't the Christian thing be to love and support them anyway? Being a Star Trek fan is a choice (I think). Does that give Star Wars fans the right to legally and socially abuse them?

But it's not merely a choice.

What if it's a disorder? So is alopecia. Should we discriminate against people who can't grow hair? Forbid them marrying? Keep them away from our children? No, this is a form of bigotry that is laser focused on penises and vaginas.

[Hagoth]

My only comment is that one of the people who I love most dearly in this world is transgender and I have seen first hand the pain and rejection they have experienced at the hands of church leaders and members. Your advice is to walk away. I agree. But you have to remember that the people you are talking about start as children deeply indoctrinated into the church and its culture. They believe it and they think they need to be fixed. A lot of times the conflict kills them. Tell a Hitler Youth to just walk away.

[alas]

My only comment is that one of the people who I love most dearly in this world is transgender and I have seen first hand the pain and rejection they have experienced at the hands of church leaders and members. Your advice is to walk away. I agree. But you have to remember that the people you are talking about start as children deeply indoctrinated into the church and its culture. They believe it and they think they need to be fixed. A lot of times the conflict kills them. Tell a Hitler Youth to just walk away.

This. ^^^^

And what is NOM for if it doesn’t give us a safe place to bitch and complain about the false teachings of the church.

And why I care about something that only affects 2% of the population? Because they are human beings who deserve respect.

And OK, you have a learning disorder that society doesn’t accommodate. Well, boo hoo so do I. I am ADD and possibly on the autism spectrum. But no one started teaching you when you were 6 that your learning disorder was going to send you to hell. They did teach that to my daughter. So, yeah, I have low tolerance for those who can’t accept that teaching people they are going to hell for who they love or feelings they cannot change is wrong.

[Hagoth]

And why I care about something that only affects 2% of the population? Because they are human beings who deserve respect.

Didn't Jesus say something about the one and the ninety nine? Two is twice as much as one. Somebody check my math on that.

[Apologeticsislying]

And why I care about something that only affects 2% of the population? Because they are human beings who deserve respect.

Didn't Jesus say something about the one and the ninety nine? Two is twice as much as one. Somebody check my math on that.

O.K., lessee here.....mathematics, the subject I love but it doesn't love me.....O.K. add the 6 and the 34, divide by 8, subtract 3, add 9, multiply by 0, add 2.....yep, it checks out amigo!

[Emower]

Didn't Jesus say something about the one and the ninety nine? Two is twice as much as one. Somebody check my math on that.

O.K., lessee here.....mathematics, the subject I love but it doesn't love me.....O.K. add the 6 and the 34, divide by 8, subtract 3, add 9, multiply by 0, add 2.....yep, it checks out amigo!

So the church should change all of its standards, rules and policies because some people choose not to follow them? Any church that doesn't follow
their standards isn't worth much. Sure people will be offended. That's life. The church didn't like my standards and I didn't like theirs so I had to make a choice. Which is more important? What I wanted or what the church wanted. Was my belief in the church strong enough that I would give up my "sins" (according to them) or keep doing what I wanted to. That's my point. If the church is so important to you then you should do what you can to conform to their beliefs. If your beliefs are more important that your church then go your separate ways in peace. The church doesn't accept transgenders. Ok fine. If you don't like it or you would rather keep living whatever contrary lifestyle then more power to you. Everyone knows what the church believes. I say either conform or depart. The same thing applies to my job. I can do as I am expected of I can quit. I can live as my wife expects of I can leave. I cannot however cheat on my wife and then bitch and moan that she doesn't accept my "lifestyle." I cannot lie in court and when the judge finds me in contempt complain that I didn't know the rules. Same with the LDS church. You know what they believe. Quit complaining if you don't want to follow their rules.

Boy, I get what you are saying here, I really do. And I half agree with you. But I half don't, and here's why. You entered into that job with your eyes wide open, and no tricks, and you did that as an adult. Same with your marriage. You knew what you were doing, and I don't get the sense you are from India, it was not an arranged marriage where you might be disowned if you didn't go through with it. You are ignoring a whole suite of reasons why people cannot or don't, leave.

[Palerider]

I cannot imagine why anyone would choose to be transgender. It makes no sense. Writing off their experiences is what the church did to me and continues to do.

I don't want to imply that I am LGBT. I have other issues the church ignores.

Hasn't this been the downfall of the church since it's inception?

ETA: Anciently, in the true church, if an individual had an ailment, a condition, was "lunatic", possessed by an evil spirit....and they truly wanted to be free of that condition, in many cases they could go to an apostle and be "cured".

But with a generally impotent lay priesthood (and I'm including the Q15 in that group) that claims that all you need to do is follow the counsel of your (in most cases) poorly informed Bishop or SP, what can anyone expect!?

The church's so called priesthood/revelation connection is supposed to be greater and more advanced than the slow treading, often erroneous science fields. And yet we find no real solutions in the church to the problems that beset us.

Leadership is dragged reluctantly behind each advance in science. They are forced by truth to "modify" their "policies" and redefine their lexicon to make it fit their narrative.
How can leadership rightfully expect these poor guys they call as Bishops and SPs to speak to issues they know nothing about? Then BPs and SPs look to Salt Lake for "revealed" answers from God and it's just as bad because there isn't any and leadership doesn't know squat either.

Much easier to fall back on platitudes or hope the problem just "goes away" than to really have to immerse oneself in a thorough study. Besides....that study might come out on the wrong side of the current leadership policy and what then? Start making waves?

Oh...I don't think so.....
Better to just ignore it once the member has been informed of the policy.

[blazerb]

Hasn't this been the downfall of the church since it's inception?

If an individual has an ailment, a condition, is "lunatic", is possessed by an evil spirit....and they truly want to be free of that condition, in many cases they could go to an apostle and be "cured".

But with a generally impotent lay priesthood (and I'm including the Q15 in that group) that claims that all you need to do is follow the counsel of your (in most cases) poorly informed Bishop or SP, what can anyone expect!?

I won't go into much detail, but when I was a teenager, I had a chronic condition. My wonderful father gave me several blessings. There was no improvement. He took me for a blessing to the bishopric. There was no improvement. I found out later what I needed to do to fix the problem. I needed to ignore the promises of the church and look to persons with real knowledge. It took me a long time to learn that lesson.

I wish we could have difficult conversations at church. I would be more involved if we could. However, the church is fragile. It has to keep us from talking about hard things or it would fall apart.

[Palerider]

I wish we could have difficult conversations at church. I would be more involved if we could. However, the church is fragile. It has to keep us from talking about hard things or it would fall apart.

I agree.

The church cannot engage in frank and honest discussions about problems for which it has no solutions.
The reason being it would show itself for what it really is, which is nearly useless. That is unless you need an elders quorum to help you move.....

[Keewon]

IMO, everyone interested in gender studies should read about the infamous "John / Joan" study, investigated by Dr. Milton Diamond of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society at the University of Hawaii. Dr. Diamond made a huge mark when he shined the light on a dangerously wrongheaded experiment by psychologist John Money, who advised and supervised the parents of a boy who lost his penis in a botched circumcision, and attempted to raise him as a girl. This child rejected being identified as a girl from his youngest years, and eventually threatened to kill himself if his parents made him continue in his "rehabilitation" therapy. When the father tearfully confessed to him in early adolescence that he had in fact been born male, the child's sense of relief was overwhelming. He had always known he was a boy, regardless of all his parents and therapists had done to convince him otherwise.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

Unfortunately, the story did not have a happy ending. After learning about his history and trying to adjust, and after a difficult marriage, the young man ended up taking his life at age 38. (I guess, as the old TV ad said, "It's not good to fool with Mother Nature".)

It should be no surprise by now that nature doesn't often come wrapped in neat little boxes. Gender, while strongly bimodal, isn't binary. If you try to imagine all the characteristics of "maleness / femaleness" on a single axis, there are two well defined statistical curves on that axis, with very visible means at the "typical male" and "typical female" positions, but also a very visible area of overlap between them. That overlap includes those who are atypical visavis their gender identity, sexual orientation or both. Gender isn't just about genitals; the brain is also involved.

[Apologeticsislying]

I wish we could have difficult conversations at church. I would be more involved if we could. However, the church is fragile. It has to keep us from talking about hard things or it would fall apart.

I agree.

The church cannot engage in frank and honest discussions about problems for which it has no solutions.
The reason being it would show itself for what it really is, which is nearly useless. That is unless you need an elders quorum to help you move.....

Hold on....... God helps with car keys periodically......

[Palerider]

Hold on....... God helps with car keys periodically......

Sorry.....lost my head.

[asb]

One other observation here.

1. It is an incontrovertible scientific fact that at least 1.5 of humans are born intersex, that is biologically neither male nor female.

2. Oaks said, “binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.” https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... ip-session

3. If what Oaks said is true, the fact that "binary creation" isn't actually a thing means that the whole plan of salvation is frustrated and is null and void.
Thus, Oaks denies the power of God to save.

Is there honestly any other way to look at it?

[alas]

One other observation here.

1. It is an incontrovertible scientific fact that at least 1.5 of humans are born intersex, that is biologically neither male nor female.

2. Oaks said, “binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.” https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... ip-session

3. If what Oaks said is true, the fact that "binary creation" isn't actually a thing means that the whole plan of salvation is frustrated and is null and void.
Thus, Oaks denies the power of God to save.

Is there honestly any other way to look at it?

Oaks knows that if people are really born with no clear indication if they are male or female, or with male chromosomes and a female body, that his view of the plan of salvation is called into question. That is exactly why he has fits about the whole thing. He knows that science proves him wrong and he just can’t stand to be wrong.

He wants life to be simple and it isn’t.

[jfro18]

Oaks knows that if people are really born with no clear indication if they are male or female, or with male chromosomes and a female body, that his view of the plan of salvation is called into question. That is exactly why he has fits about the whole thing. He knows that science proves him wrong and he just can’t stand to be wrong.

He wants life to be simple and it isn’t.

That's such a great way to frame what Oaks is doing, but that past really explains why most members simply refuse to look at information that proves this church isn't true while at the same time being open to new information in literally *anything* else when it comes to science, advancement in knowledge, etc.

[Hagoth]

Quit complaining if you don't want to follow their rules.

I don't disagree with what you're saying Blashyrkh. The best statement you can make is with your feet and your checkbook. And that should be the end of it. But you better hope the parents of a child who will be harmed by all of this wakes up and takes the child out of the environment. Sadly, the parents are indoctrinated to add more harm believing they're pleasing God via Oaks. That's what I'm talking about. There are a lot of homeless kids on the streets of Salt Lake who have been kicked out of their "loving" LDS homes for being LGBT and failing to adequately repent. If you doubt me go down to the Homeless Youth Resource Center on 800 South in SLC and get to know some of them.

[Palerider]

One other observation here.

1. It is an incontrovertible scientific fact that at least 1.5 of humans are born intersex, that is biologically neither male nor female.

2. Oaks said, “binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.” https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... ip-session

3. If what Oaks said is true, the fact that "binary creation" isn't actually a thing means that the whole plan of salvation is frustrated and is null and void.
Thus, Oaks denies the power of God to save.

Is there honestly any other way to look at it?

Oaks knows that if people are really born with no clear indication if they are male or female, or with male chromosomes and a female body, that his view of the plan of salvation is called into question. That is exactly why he has fits about the whole thing. He knows that science proves him wrong and he just can’t stand to be wrong.

He wants life to be simple and it isn’t.

Putting on my TBM hat here for a moment:

I think both of the above statements may be unintentionally misrepresenting the Mormon view.

Isn't Oaks really saying that in Eternity the creation of spirits is really binary and that bodily complications here on Earth are just temporary glitches that like many other temporal problems, have to be lived with until they are corrected in the resurrection? Isn't that part of the purpose of the resurrection; to make perfect all of those temporal failings that so unjustly clouded our lives?

So the church expectation is similar to that of the gay issue. One needs to live as "normally" as possible while adhering to the law of chastity. A difficult hand to be dealt assuredly but it will all work out in the end.

Thus an ambiguous body here on Earth will be perfected according to it's "spiritual gender" whether that spirit is male or female, when this life is over. In the Mormon view, gender is strictly binary in the eternities. Not on Earth....

Ok. NOM hat back on:

The issue then becomes one of policy. How does the supposed church of God deal with those who struggle with these issues? Are we talking about "sin" or are we talking about a temporal malady over which the individual may have little control?

[alas]

One other observation here.

1. It is an incontrovertible scientific fact that at least 1.5 of humans are born intersex, that is biologically neither male nor female.

2. Oaks said, “binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.” https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.or ... ip-session

3. If what Oaks said is true, the fact that "binary creation" isn't actually a thing means that the whole plan of salvation is frustrated and is null and void.
Thus, Oaks denies the power of God to save.

Is there honestly any other way to look at it?

Oaks knows that if people are really born with no clear indication if they are male or female, or with male chromosomes and a female body, that his view of the plan of salvation is called into question. That is exactly why he has fits about the whole thing. He knows that science proves him wrong and he just can’t stand to be wrong.

He wants life to be simple and it isn’t.

Putting on my TBM hat here for a moment:

I think both of the above statements may be unintentionally misrepresenting the Mormon view.

Isn't Oaks really saying that in Eternity the creation of spirits is really binary and that bodily complications here on Earth are just temporary glitches that like many other temporal problems, have to be lived with until they are corrected in the resurrection? Isn't that part of the purpose of the resurrection; to make perfect all of those temporal failings that so unjustly clouded our lives?

So the church expectation is similar to that of the gay issue. One needs to live as "normally" as possible while adhering to the law of chastity. A difficult hand to be dealt assuredly but it will all work out in the end.

Thus an ambiguous body here on Earth will be perfected according to it's "spiritual gender" whether that spirit is male or female, when this life is over. In the Mormon view, gender is strictly binary in the eternities. Not on Earth....

Ok. NOM hat back on:

The issue then becomes one of policy. How does the supposed church of God deal with those who struggle with these issues? Are we talking about "sin" or are we talking about a temporal malady over which the individual may have little control?

I would agree with you if Oaks was Holland. But Oaks is fuming angry at the people with what Holland would call a birth defect. Oaks isn’t reacting to a birth defect, but a moral transgression. Oaks isn’t pounding the pulpit about children born deaf and trying to correct the birth defect. But a child born with ambiguous genitals, who the doctor guesses is male, and then grows up feeling inside like she is a she and the doctor screwed up with his guess, well, that send Oaks climbing right up the wall. The psychology behind his anger says he is really angry because his view of his religion is threatened. He protesteth too much.

See, being born into the wrong sex of body isn’t seen as a birth defect. Well, the transgender folk see it that way. But the church sees it as they are born into the correct body, but their evil tendencies make them want to defy God and be the opposite sex. Even if they are XY but have a female body, well that can’t be that they are insensitive to male hormones, they want to be male because they are defying God. God had them born with female genitals. Period. It is t that simple and that makes Oakes angry.

[Keewon]

But the church sees it as they are born into the correct body, but their evil tendencies make them want to defy God and be the opposite sex. Even if they are XY but have a female body, well that can’t be that they are insensitive to male hormones, they want to be male because they are defying God. God had them born with female genitals. Period. It is t that simple and that makes Oakes angry.

It all comes back to the "Why would a loving Heavenly Father do this to his children?" meme Packer let out. Science (and the experiences of a large minority of people) has got to be wrong, because if it is right, that says God either screws up or is malevolent or Church doctrine is wrong. None of those conclusions is acceptable. Therefore science is wrong, and everyone who is persuaded by science is weak, just like Bruce McConkie taught about evolution.

The gloves are off.

[Palerider]

It all comes back to the "Why would a loving Heavenly Father do this to his children?" meme Packer let out. Science (and the experiences of a large minority of people) has got to be wrong, because if it is right, that says God either screws up or is malevolent or Church doctrine is wrong. None of those conclusions is acceptable.

The gloves are off.

And the above concept seems so obtuse to me. Leadership should know better. Firstly it ISN'T Heavenly Father "doing it" to his children. It is the permitting of the experience to occur, which is quite different.

Is the experience just or fair? Of course not. It was never meant to be. But the learning that takes place through the experience is of such a profound nature that it can be achieved in no other way. That's another subject altogether.

The participation in Earth or temporal life effects EVERY aspect of the human experience. So why should the gender issue be an exception? Whether it is the body or the brain/mind, everything is subject to imperfection in this life.

The only hope we have is that a just God will make all whole again in due time.

Or if one is a non-believer in God, one day all suffering will surely be over.