Gender in the preexistence

[2bizE]

I was thinking the other day about the LGBT group that was prohibited from marching in the freedom festival in Provo. The Family Proclamation states,
"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."

So, knowing how conception works, with the X and Y sex chromosomes, what would happen if a female spirit came down into a male body? Would that person be gay?

[Snowdrop]

And what if you're intersex? Did somebody mess up? Is there more than male and female? The proclamation sheds no light on this.

[wtfluff]

And what if you're intersex? Did somebody mess up? Is there more than male and female? The proclamation sheds no light on this.

Probably because the attorneys who wrote "the proclamation" don't understand this type of stuff.

[Palerider]

I've always figured that the imperfections that are inherent in earth life don't stop at the door of gender issues. I think B.K. Packer was utterly wrong when he said that's something Heavenly Father wouldn't do to us.

It isn't Heavenly Father doing it. It's just a fact of earth life and the imperfections that come along with it.

Is it fair in the short view? No. Will all of the factors of earth life be taken into consideration and corrected by Heavenly Father in the long view? I feel sure they will be. I have faith that God will make all things fair and right in the end.

I don't think there is any ambiguity in spirit gender. But I know enough about the influence that an ambiguous body can have on the individual to know that people shouldn't be blamed or judged for the feelings their bodies create.

[Rob4Hope]

I was utterly shocked one day when I was talking to someone who called herself a "Dragon Mama". Didn't know what that was at the time, but when I found out, was fascinated. She had a reason to be there, and she was serious and DANG well informed!

She told me the Proclamation was a legal document, crafted by attorneys, as a way to enter the Hawaii debate, and that it was a strategic positioning to enter the political world while maintain tax-exempt status, and a few other things.

I have never heard a Q15 person indicate it was revelation, exception Nielson once, and as I recall, that was changed later in the written section of his statements.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Proclamation is NOT doctrine, though it has taken on that image. What a joke. What is doctrine these days?...and how does gender even play a role in sexual identity?

Good thing we have GAs tell us these things, who have a shortcut to answers through fuzzy feelings. And, isn't it nice that our sun gets its light from another star, and not from nuclear fusion?....

I'm certain the fuzzy feelings are right...I know they are!

PS. Wait a second!...I just remembered I got a fuzzy feeling when Rey took the Light Saber in her hand and reached out for the FORCE. I KNEW IT...the FORCE IS TRUE!

[mooseman]

She is correct. Lawyers wrote for the courts, not Jesus for the prophet. http://rationalfaiths.com/from-amici-to-ohana/

To be fair, leadership saw the coming storm, and in the early 80s called a lawyer to be an apostle who establish a gameplay to combat the "gay agenda" http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/9/1/3/913d6fe ... e0f43dc335

[moksha]

The Mormon and Homosexual Agenda

As you know, the LDS Church began practicing polygamy in its early days and continued up until the first part of the 20th Century. The finishing blow to polygamy came when President Joseph F. Smith declared the LDS Temple to be off limits to practicing polygamists and so it seemed like it spelled the end for polygamy. The forces of traditional marriage had won and the Mormon passageway to the highest degree of exaltation seemed forever closed, or at least from the multiple wives entry way.

Or had it?

That is where clever social engineering and a knowledge of how to get things done entered the picture. Let’s call it the Mormon Agenda.

The question was how to enable the practice of polygamy once again. Surely the forces behind traditional marriage would thwart the reintroduction to polygamy, so the solution was simple: To undermine the forces of traditional marriage in such a way that it could encompass the Celestial Blessing of polygamy, yet at the same time to remove from the LDS Church any suspicion of complicity in that undermining.

How best to achieve the end of traditional marriage? By altering the fundamental assumptions underlying its foundation of course! Three primary objectives were outlined:

1. Introduction of the idea that all people were entitled to civil rights under the law. It was noted that a whole class of citizens with less than white and therefore delightsome skin were deprived of their civil liberties by both law and practice. This disenfranchisement must end but the world must never know the Church supported this action. Strong words were continually uttered by Church leaders disavowing even a hint of approval for this enfranchisement. You know the rest.

2. Men must give up their demand that women live within the narrow role society had prescribed for them and accept that women were not mere chattel, but free to enter into agreements of Sister-Wifehood. To that end, women must throw off their shackles and embrace the idea of equality with men. However, it was incumbent on Church leaders to be seen as strongly condemning this idea and declaring it as heretical for LDS women to not be subject to rule by men. Very crafty this point, for it, was vital that society change its attitudes, but not so much that polygamist husbands would eventually be surrounded by a harem which would be both unruly and unmanageable.

3. The idea that marriage is an inalienable civil right must be fostered and a precedent set that such a right to marriage cannot be restricted to a single class of people, such as one man and one woman. The right needed to be established that polygamists cannot be singled out as being excluded from having their marriages validated by law. To accomplish this, there needed to be some other group of people put forth that had been denied the right to have their marriages validated by law. Two prime groups were considered: beastialists and homosexuals. Homosexuals had shown themselves to be the most viable group in seeking recognition, so they were given the nod and Church leaders went into overdrive to distance themselves from this idea. Some went a little overboard and said things embarrassing for the Church, but that did not dampen the ultimate success of the polygamy reintroduction mission. Homosexuals had their agenda and Mormons had their own. Both have thus far benefited from the expansion of the definition of marriage as a right than cannot be denied based on group affiliation.

What will the future hold for the Mormon Agenda? I will leave it up to the gentle readers to add their thoughts to this thread.

[deacon blues]

I can see Elder Nelson leaning over to Elder Oaks and saying, "This just might work."

[Rob4Hope]

The Mormon and Homosexual Agenda

As you know, the LDS Church began practicing polygamy in its early days and continued up until the first part of the 20th Century. The finishing blow to polygamy came when President Joseph F. Smith declared the LDS Temple to be off limits to practicing polygamists and so it seemed like it spelled the end for polygamy. The forces of traditional marriage had won and the Mormon passageway to the highest degree of exaltation seemed forever closed, or at least from the multiple wives entry way.

Or had it?

That is where clever social engineering and a knowledge of how to get things done entered the picture. Let’s call it the Mormon Agenda.

The question was how to enable the practice of polygamy once again. Surely the forces behind traditional marriage would thwart the reintroduction to polygamy, so the solution was simple: To undermine the forces of traditional marriage in such a way that it could encompass the Celestial Blessing of polygamy, yet at the same time to remove from the LDS Church any suspicion of complicity in that undermining.

How best to achieve the end of traditional marriage? By altering the fundamental assumptions underlying its foundation of course! Three primary objectives were outlined:

1. Introduction of the idea that all people were entitled to civil rights under the law. It was noted that a whole class of citizens with less than white and therefore delightsome skin were deprived of their civil liberties by both law and practice. This disenfranchisement must end but the world must never know the Church supported this action. Strong words were continually uttered by Church leaders disavowing even a hint of approval for this enfranchisement. You know the rest.

2. Men must give up their demand that women live within the narrow role society had prescribed for them and accept that women were not mere chattel, but free to enter into agreements of Sister-Wifehood. To that end, women must throw off their shackles and embrace the idea of equality with men. However, it was incumbent on Church leaders to be seen as strongly condemning this idea and declaring it as heretical for LDS women to not be subject to rule by men. Very crafty this point, for it, was vital that society change its attitudes, but not so much that polygamist husbands would eventually be surrounded by a harem which would be both unruly and unmanageable.

3. The idea that marriage is an inalienable civil right must be fostered and a precedent set that such a right to marriage cannot be restricted to a single class of people, such as one man and one woman. The right needed to be established that polygamists cannot be singled out as being excluded from having their marriages validated by law. To accomplish this, there needed to be some other group of people put forth that had been denied the right to have their marriages validated by law. Two prime groups were considered: beastialists and homosexuals. Homosexuals had shown themselves to be the most viable group in seeking recognition, so they were given the nod and Church leaders went into overdrive to distance themselves from this idea. Some went a little overboard and said things embarrassing for the Church, but that did not dampen the ultimate success of the polygamy reintroduction mission. Homosexuals had their agenda and Mormons had their own. Both have thus far benefited from the expansion of the definition of marriage as a right than cannot be denied based on group affiliation.

What will the future hold for the Mormon Agenda? I will leave it up to the gentle readers to add their thoughts to this thread.

Moksha, are you suggesting this agenda and the position the LDS church espouses (or feigns) toward it, are being used to change social and legal foundations to re-introduce polygamy?

For years I've heard the rumor: "If it become illegal to deny two men or two women from being married, the next step is allowing multiple men and women to marry however they want..."

[2bizE]

No wonder there has been no attempt to get rid of section 132

[Red Ryder]

To be fair, leadership saw the coming storm, and in the early 80s called a lawyer to be an apostle who establish a gameplay to combat the "gay agenda" http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/9/1/3/913d6fe ... e0f43dc335

Wow that was a real gem to read through. I have to admit, I think Oaks is a super smart guy but his talents are wasted trying to defend the indefensible.

Of course then I read this kind of crap and really wonder if he believes his own writings.

One generation of homosexual "marriages" would depopulate a nation, and, if sufficiently widespread, would extinguish its people. Our marriage laws should not abet national suicide.

[Just This Guy]

It gets even more nutty when you consider the biology of the human fetus development cycle.

Regardless of genetics, every fetus starts basically Female. At around 7 weeks, a genetically male child had a sure of hormones that results in the fetus developing male organs. Without this hormone rush, the fetus will continuing developing along the female line. What makes it more problematic is that that rush of hormones can be disrupted by the mother. Injury, diet, drugs, and extreme stress of the mother can cause that to not happen in the ideal method. This is one of the common causes of intersex people.

So the decisions of the mother can have an affect on how the child develop gender wise.

So how can gender be eternal if actions of someone in this life can change the result of child's sexual development? It is very possible for a child to be genetically male, but develop into a female body because of actions of the mother. After conception, actions and decisions of the mother can change the gender of the child,how can it be eternal if it can be changed by mere mortals?

Sorry, but gender being eternal does not make sense when viewed with science.

[moksha]

Moksha, are you suggesting this agenda and the position the LDS church espouses (or feigns) toward it, are being used to change social and legal foundations to re-introduce polygamy?

Now that could be my way of gently making fun of Mormons using the term "Homosexual Agenda" as being an organized conspiracy by the LGBT community to subvert holy matrimony, or it could be an exposé of a tremendous plot to reintroduce polygamy.

[crossmyheart]

Moksha:
I never know when to take you serious.

You had me up until the unruly and unmanageable harem. And I totally lost it at beastialists OMG- you crack me up.

[Rob4Hope]

Moksha, are you suggesting this agenda and the position the LDS church espouses (or feigns) toward it, are being used to change social and legal foundations to re-introduce polygamy?

Now that could be my way of gently making fun of Mormons using the term "Homosexual Agenda" as being an organized conspiracy by the LGBT community to subvert holy matrimony, or it could be an exposé of a tremendous plot to reintroduce polygamy.

That's not a denial...that's not a denial....



------

[el-asherah]

Sorry for the late response been out on vacation, interesting thread!!

Just to add a interesting twist, Gender being eternal also directly contradicts mormon doctrine.

The Proclamation on the Family states that "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." This directly contradicts D&C 132

D&C 132 states that for those not entering into Plural Marriage/Celestial Marriage

16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.

17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

The definition of an angel is a gender-less being, see the following quote from Joseph F Smith

"In both of these kingdoms [i.e., the terrestrial and telestial] there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase. Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the “continuation of the seeds forever.” They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain “separately and singly” forever. Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be – neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection." (Doctrines of Salvation. vol. 2, pg. 287-288.)

[LSOF]

Finding contradictions in Mormonism is like finding longhorns in Texas.

[PalmSprings]

Finding contradictions in Mormonism is like finding longhorns in Texas.

Are you saying everything is big in mormonism including contradictions?