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

[Not Buying It]

Geez, where is everybody today, no thread on this yet?

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10 ... ansgender/

“ … Binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.”

Guess God done screwed up with those born with Klinefelter syndrome.

[moksha]

If there wasn't an address hating on some group for their sexual or political difference, we couldn't know it is the Conference season. It's not like we can hear reindeer hooves on the roof for this one.

[Apologeticsislying]

If there wasn't an address hating on some group for their sexual or political difference, we couldn't know it is the Conference season. It's not like we can hear reindeer hooves on the roof for this one.

One notices also the lack of criticism of other religious views. It has moved into a different arena. Now its more social agenda. i.e., control of people.

[Red Ryder]

By binary creation he really means this:

Single?
1 = OK, but find a mate.
0 = OK, but find a mate.

Married?
10 = OK
100000000000000000000 = OK
11 = not OK
00 = not OK
100 = OK
110 = not OK

[lostinmiddlemormonism]

My biggest problem with Oaks is his stunning hypocrisy. He talks about the importance defending religious freedom while simultaneously kicking BYU students that choose to change their religion from Mormonism to something else? What about their religious freedom? In the one institution that he can actually exert control or influence Oaks chooses to punish those that excercise their religious freedom in a manner that he disapproves of.

It is the same thing here. Oaks is perfectly accepting of the idea that marriage is NOT between one man and one woman. After all, I am sure that he would claim that he is eternally married to both June and Kristen. He would be the first to claim that his marriage to June was NOT ended by her death, yet he pursued a second wife. So, whenever you hear him talk about marriage is between one man and one woman, remember that he himself doesn't believe it or practice it. Just like religious freedom. So long as he gets to make the rules he is happy. The man is an asshat.

[Anon70]

Dallin is 87. He’s pretty healthy. Not sure he can outlast Nelson but if he does whooooo boy are things at church going to get ugly (or is it uglier?)!

[Red Ryder]

Dallin is 87. He’s pretty healthy. Not sure he can outlast Nelson but if he does whooooo boy are things at church going to get ugly (or is it uglier?)!

Oaks may give us the “Packer moment” we all were hoping for.

To be honest though, I’m really hoping Nelson makes it another 5 years minimum or that Wendy and Sheri can implement phase II of the apostle wive’s club conspiracy which transfers the power to them.

Perhaps baptismal witnesses are the first step!

[Apologeticsislying]

The next step for Wendi and Sheri is to rewrite the D&C (under RMN's seer stone revelation, but of course, we cannot abide insubordination) showing the Lord wishes the succession of his prophet when he passes onto his second anointed eternities is to be had by his eternal partner, his wife. Wendi for President!

[blazerb]

The next step for Wendi and Sheri is to rewrite the D&C (under RMN's seer stone revelation, but of course, we cannot abide insubordination) showing the Lord wishes the succession of his prophet when he passes onto his second anointed eternities is to be had by his eternal partner, his wife. Wendi for President!

I think they should be afraid that there would be some proviso about marrying the next in line, the same way JS's wives were.

One of the problems about what Oaks said is the way it cuts off inquiry into the spectrum of humanity. You're a 1 or a 0 as Red Ryder put it. Transgender persons, persons with XX male syndrome or other conditions are just ignored. I'm sure he would tell us that he does not have time to speak to the exceptions. This is an area where failing to speak about the exceptions is killing people. It's awful.

[Hagoth]

The thing that sickened me about Oaks' talk was the disingenuous way he first stomps all over trans people and then tells US to open our hearts and love them, knowing full well that he has just given us an apostolic command to NOT do so.

Why did he feel the need to slap the other cheek? There's an article in the Tribune that clarifies. Apparently there are trans members of the church who have found some reconciliation with The Proclamation. It says gender is eternal, which they were interpreting as a confirmation that they really did bring their gender into this life with them, but they somehow ended up with an imperfect body. But nope, Oaks can't bear the thought of them finding any peace in this life. To Oaks you ARE your genitals. All of his sweet talk about how loving he is falls resoundingly flat in the presence of his smoldering hatred.

[Palerider]

To Oaks you ARE your genitals. All of his sweet talk about how loving he is falls resoundingly flat in the presence of his smoldering hatred.

Just wondering here if Oaks could be speaking of the situation with a hermaphrodite?

These are very difficult situations to deal with, especially for physicians. From my reading it appears that an individual while displaying both male and female characteristics, they may manifest, as an example, more specifically a male characteristic even when blood or genetic testing shows an XX or female chromosomal arrangement.

In the past physicians have even removed the more prominent genitalia, if it doesn't match the chromosomal arrangement. It's a hugely difficult decision to make. Apparently numerous hermaphrodites have expressed the desire that they had been given the opportunity to choose their own path at a later time in life.

I know there is a different scenario in the case of a transgender individual and so was curious if Oaks might be addressing a more broad spectrum of issues?

Is he in fact saying that it is possible to receive an "imperfect" body with congenital gender difficulties but also saying it is impossible to receive a "wrong" or "incorrect" body of an entirely different sex than the spirit possesses?

[Apologeticsislying]

The thing that sickened me about Oaks' talk was the disingenuous way he first stomps all over trans people and then tells US to open our hearts and love them, knowing full well that he has just given us an apostolic command to NOT do so.

Why did he feel the need to slap the other cheek? There's an article in the Tribune that clarifies. Apparently there are trans members of the church who have found some reconciliation with The Proclamation. It says gender is eternal, which they were interpreting as a confirmation that they really did bring their gender into this life with them, but they somehow ended up with an imperfect body. But nope, Oaks can't bear the thought of them finding any peace in this life. To Oaks you ARE your genitals. All of his sweet talk about how loving he is falls resoundingly flat in the presence of his smoldering hatred.

Masculine Patriarchy cannot have love, they have rules. Oaks cannot possibly ever share compassion since he has none. He cannot share love and inclusion, he has none. He is the head of a dominating all male bureaucracy. He does not know the scripture in his heart, he knows it in his head. The difference is vast.

Again, as I explore various literatures I ignored for years in order to spend my time ridiculously wasting it in the cause of apologetics, I find the theme of the search for the Holy Grail fascinating. Each knight of King Arthur's Court had to go on their own individual path or they would get off track, even if one of the others was on the right path! It must be individually discovered, or forever remain unknown. You cannot be told in advance what to find, you have to find and find out for yourself. It is individualistic knowledge, not preordained knowledge you must arrive at to continue supporting a group view, especially a church group. Of all things this seriously hits my heart powerfully! Not only such a magnificent story of magnificent spirituality, but a magnificent message today when so much bureaucratic corruption in religion is seen hourly.

[2bizE]

Geez, where is everybody today, no thread on this yet?

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/10 ... ansgender/

“ … Binary creation is essential to the plan of salvation.”

Guess God done screwed up with those born with Klinefelter syndrome.

No thread because we are exhausted from trying to stage manage the large grizzly bear of Mr. Oaks. His rhetoric is the same vomit inducing slop every time he opens his mouth. Like Mr. Trump, sometimes you just try to ignore. If he becomes prophet, I imagine he will require intense interviews to identify any gay person in the church as though they are Cylons from Battle Star Gallactica. It will be like in the past using genealogy to weed out anyone with black roots.

[2bizE]

So nice that Oaks has done the thinking for us so we don’t have to.

[Mormorrisey]

Wait a minute - didn't Oaks last conference tell me not to listen to non-experts on important matters? Why the hell would I listen to a lawyer spout nonsense about biology when he clearly hasn't read any of the science? In all the literature I've read, intersex individuals make up between 1.7 and 3% of the world's population. (More than Mormons, by the way.) So how eternal are THEIR genitalia?

Just garbage.

[Apologeticsislying]

So nice that Oaks has done the thinking for us so we don’t have to.

And, we don't even have to criticize him, even while we are right. We can just disagree with his amateur knowledge of this subject.

[blazerb]

Seriously? This whole choose your gender thing is only a recent creation. 10 years ago you all would have agreed that transgendered people were mentally ill or had some serious issues. Now that it's been pushed on us that you can be any gender you want you have all accepted it as a real thing. Yes there are certain instances where biology causes issues. But up until recently even the psychological community agreed that transgenderism was a mental disorder. Oooh but now you are all so enlightened over the prehistoric and bigoted views that you all held just a few years ago. Good grief. If your born a male you are a male. Female, female. Yes you may have tendencies towards the other sex. My son is a little effeminate. He will never be a lumberjack or Navy SEAL but he is still a male.

Here's some reading for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history Of course, Wikipedia is not the final word, but the article gives plenty of references for you.

You do not know my views from 10 years ago. You do not have the right to tell me what I thought, what I think, or what I will be thinking. A single data point out of the 7.5 billion possible is a ridiculous basis for a conclusion, but the flippant way you describe this tells me that you are not interested in a real conversation about the issue.

[Palerider]

Seriously? This whole choose your gender thing is only a recent creation. 10 years ago you all would have agreed that transgendered people were mentally ill or had some serious issues. Now that it's been pushed on us that you can be any gender you want you have all accepted it as a real thing. Yes there are certain instances where biology causes issues. But up until recently even the psychological community agreed that transgenderism was a mental disorder. Oooh but now you are all so enlightened over the prehistoric and bigoted views that you all held just a few years ago. Good grief. If your born a male you are a male. Female, female. Yes you may have tendencies towards the other sex. My son is a little effeminate. He will never be a lumberjack or Navy SEAL but he is still a male.

Here's some reading for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_history Of course, Wikipedia is not the final word, but the article gives plenty of references for you.

You do not know my views from 10 years ago. You do not have the right to tell me what I thought, what I think, or what I will be thinking. A single data point out of the 7.5 billion possible is a ridiculous basis for a conclusion, but the flippant way you describe this tells me that you are not interested in a real conversation about the issue.

I don't know.....

Blashyrkh may have a point if only in the sense that the medical community seems to be all over the place on this issue. Here are a couple of articles leaning heavily toward considering transgender tendencies a disorder.

https://www.webmd.com/sex/gender-dysphoria

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/mi ... sex-change

It appears that the issue isn't settled by any means.

I'm always open to good science and improvements in medical approaches. I just don't want to see approaches being politically/socially driven in our time just as they were driven by religion in the past.

[blazerb]

It appears that the issue isn't settled by any means.

I'm always open to good science and improvements in medical approaches. I just don't want to see approaches being politically/socially driven in our time just as they were driven by religion in the past.

I can accept a good discussion on the issues involved. I can't accept saying that someone is just playing "choose your gender." 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.

[alas]

Seriously? This whole choose your gender thing is only a recent creation. 10 years ago you all would have agreed that transgendered people were mentally ill or had some serious issues. Now that it's been pushed on us that you can be any gender you want you have all accepted it as a real thing. Yes there are certain instances where biology causes issues. But up until recently even the psychological community agreed that transgenderism was a mental disorder. Oooh but now you are all so enlightened over the prehistoric and bigoted views that you all held just a few years ago. Good grief. If your born a male you are a male. Female, female. Yes you may have tendencies towards the other sex. My son is a little effeminate. He will never be a lumberjack or Navy SEAL but he is still a male.

“Up until ten years ago” Nope, you are wrong. I got my psychology degree 35 years ago, and guess what? The psychology has not changed that much. The medical explanations for the psychology are better. And there is still a classification for people who consider themselves to be in the “wrong” body in the latest DSM. So, according to your layman’s understanding, it is still classified as a mental disorder. But so are a whole bunch of other physical things that affect how people think and feel.

Your argument is the argument of a bigot. Please educate yourself. It is not nearly as simple as “if you are born male, then you are male. What about the person whose chromosomes are XY, only looks totally female because his/her body is insensitive to the male hormones? Male or female? What if “she” feels like she should have been male? What about one X chromosome? What about XXY? What about XYYY? What about people born with both male and female genitals? If the body can be that way, why the hell do you think the brain can’t be? You think exactly like Oaks. Educate yourself. This subject is very very complex and it is not binary with either you are a man or a woman. Not even physically. There are all kinds of people with genitals that are sort of in between. The baby girl whose clitoris is the size of a penis, no wait, it is a penis. Sure, 98% of the time you are right and people are either male or female. But that other 2% is somewhere in between.