Transgender people in the Church

[_AmazingDisgrace]

That is not my understanding of compatibilism. The doctor chooses, but he chooses deterministically.

If determinism is true, then the proposition, "The doctor will decide the child is male" was true before the Earth even existed. Billions of years later, at the moment of "decision", the physical processes in the doctor's brain (which are the result of all the physical processes leading up to them) produce this result. Or the spiritual processes in the doctor's spiritual brain. Or the direct intervention of an omnipotent being does it.

Whether this is a naturalistic or supernaturalistic universe, calling this situation a "choice" seems like saying that water "chooses" to flow downhill. Where's the agent exercising his agency?

[_asbestosman]

Where's the agent exercising his agency?

In some sense it is from before the earth existed. The Book of Mormon says that all is as one day to God and time is only measured to man.

Agency is another thing I have trouble understanding. Even excusing the diffuculties in God's foreknowledge of events (see Alma 13:3 "prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God"), even then there are questions about what is ultimate for the differences in our choices. Why don't we all choose the same? Why aren't we all like Jesus? If it's because of random differences, why should we be blamed. If it's because of initial conditions, how are we responsible for those? If there were no initial conditions, still why are we different?

I think compatibilism has a decent chance at being true, but it still leaves me with unanswered questions.

[_AmazingDisgrace]

In some sense it is from before the earth existed. The Book of Mormon says that all is as one day to God and time is only measured to man.

Agency is another thing I have trouble understanding. Even excusing the diffuculties in God's foreknowledge of events (see Alma 13:3 "prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God"), even then there are questions about what is ultimate for the differences in our choices. Why don't we all choose the same? Why aren't we all like Jesus? If it's because of random differences, why should we be blamed. If it's because of initial conditions, how are we responsible for those? If there were no initial conditions, still why are we different?

I think compatibilism has a decent chance at being true, but it still leaves me with unanswered questions.

I think this church is better equipped than most religions for dealing with the question of why we behave differently. If God created all His children ex nihilo, then He alone is responsible for the actions we take, as He could have just made everybody morally perfect to begin with. But if all people have some core of uncreated intelligence, and God just formed those intelligences into spirit children, then it makes more sense that they would act differently from one other.

As for the problems with determinism, it may be the reason why Blake Ostler asserts libertarian free will and denies God's foreknowledge of the future. I'm not sure how he reconciles that with scriptural prophecies, or the verse you cited from Alma, though.

[_Zoidberg]

because it's really about transsexuals and the Church's basis (or lack thereof, IMHO) for discriminating against them.

Thank you for admitting your true purpose.

Why are you thanking me? I thought it was already obvious, but whatever. You can consider it my "agenda", but I don't really care because I'm only here to entertain myself, not influence your belief system or anyone else's. If it happens as a result, though, I'm fine with that. I would also like to remind everyone who is reading this that I'm interested in hearing about transsexual converts and/or Church members who marry transsexuals.

However, you can only keep asserting that intersex people don't really make a difference if you are willing to admit the LDS church doesn't really make a difference.

Oh brother. Even the website you linked to says, "you’d have to first get everyone to agree on what counts as intersex —and also to agree on what should count as strictly male or strictly female. That’s hard to do."

For all we know, God actually knows which gender the doctor or whoever will eventually choose in cases of truly ambiguous gender and therefore sends a spirit of the appropriate gender into that body. I suspect, for example, that XY females get a female spirit. But that's just my guess.

So anyhow, let's leave intersexed persons out of your discussion since it appears to be a red-herring and stick with the point about transsexuals. How on earth do you possibly think that could work in the LDS plan of salvation? It can't. If the church is true, as I hold it is, then transsexual operations are affront to that plan which is really the whole point of our existence. How could it not be a sin in that way. Do I think the government should discriminate against it? No. But what on earth is wrong with religions specifying that X is wrong even if it's as natural as masturbation? And please, don't try to pull some stunt about how I should be thankful that masturbation never tempted me so that's why I have a different opinion.

See, if you got a clue, asbestosman, you would realize that the discussion of intersex people is not really a red herring at all, but an issue that makes the natural question arise about why the Church can't stand LGBT people.

I quite agree with the website that it's hard to define gender; I'd link you to my thread about how to define gender on MAD (no consensus was reached, other than by people asserting that "Boys are boys and girls are girls. Any questions?", which is a rather ignorant position, IMHO), but it's not there anymore. I don't see why you think it undermines my argument. I'm not talking about my definitions here because I honestly don't have them; the best I've come up with so far is that self-determination is probably the best measuring stick. The Church prefers to use these simplistic arbitrary terms for man and woman without even defining them, so the real meaning eludes us. What is the most important factor in determining gender? Is it external genitalia, as some GA claimed? Is it chromosomes? What is it? I would like to see a published outlined definition.

Moksha mentioned "not XX and not XY" as intersex, which might be the most accurate definition. However, I would like to remind everyone that XY people with conditions like penile agenesis or micropenis were often given a surgery soon after birth and raised as girls. And like I said before, there is no reason to think these people will be denied a temple recommend or not allowed to marry a guy in the temple.

The prevalence of micropenis is 0.6%, so at least 78 thousand LDS. Granted, some of those have cromosomal conditions, but the others don't.

Speaking of inspired doctors and compatibilism, it is no longer recommended that a "normalizing" surgery is performed without obtaining the consent of the patient and babies are now assigned as boys or girls without surgery, but can change their mind later and have one. The change in policy was caused by multiple cases of people who grew up to find that they were forced into an identity they didn't want without being asked. So looks like your inspired compatibilist doctor just belly-flopped, A-man.

[_MishMagnet]

I would like to know exactly what is doctrinal when it comes to the whole LGBT issue and the church. What is doctrinal and going to stick. Or does any doctrine stick?

Both the church's stance on black people and on polygamy sounded pretty super doctrinal at the time but I'm now told it's not or that it changed.

I fully anticipate in my lifetime seeing gay marriage being accepted by the church. I prophesy that the prophesy will come, oh I don't know, just as the church appears to be one of the last holdouts and the tide starts to turn against them.

I suppose that the Proclamation to the World is nothing but a 'well formed opinion' and will not be useful to cite in 50 years or so.

[_Zoidberg]

I would like to know exactly what is doctrinal when it comes to the whole LGBT issue and the church. What is doctrinal and going to stick. Or does any doctrine stick?

Both the church's stance on black people and on polygamy sounded pretty super doctrinal at the time but I'm now told it's not or that it changed.

I fully anticipate in my lifetime seeing gay marriage being accepted by the church. I prophesy that the prophesy will come, oh I don't know, just as the church appears to be one of the last holdouts and the tide starts to turn against them.

I suppose that the Proclamation to the World is nothing but a 'well formed opinion' and will not be useful to cite in 50 years or so.

I sustain you as a prophet, seer and revelator as I have also received a personal witness that such will come to pass and when whoever is the Prophet when it happens is asked in an interview why gay people were not allowed to get married, he'll say something like this: "It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks of history".

People will wonder when an apology to the gay community will be issued. It won't. Instead, on whatever the MAD board evolves into by then, people will say: "What are you guys bitching about? It was actually God denying gay people marriage all along. So why don't you give us a pat on the back for being able to recognize the revelation that all people are now allowed to marry?"

[_harmony]

I would like to know exactly what is doctrinal when it comes to the whole LGBT issue and the church. What is doctrinal and going to stick. Or does any doctrine stick?

Both the church's stance on black people and on polygamy sounded pretty super doctrinal at the time but I'm now told it's not or that it changed.

I fully anticipate in my lifetime seeing gay marriage being accepted by the church. I prophesy that the prophesy will come, oh I don't know, just as the church appears to be one of the last holdouts and the tide starts to turn against them.

I suppose that the Proclamation to the World is nothing but a 'well formed opinion' and will not be useful to cite in 50 years or so.

About 20 years after society accepts the idea and codifies it, we'll see a wondrous revelation, opening marriage up to everyone regardless of gender or affiliations. And some people will hail it as amazing how God works through his prophets his miracles to perform. And the rest of us will wonder when women will receive the priesthood.

[_Zoidberg]

I've forgotten about that, but there is some scriptural basis for shunning guys without a penis or balls:

He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. (Deut. 23:1)

Of course, this doesn't discriminate between voluntary and involuntary loss of testicles or penis. Guys who lost theirs in an accident are not banned from the temple in the LDS church or exed, though. And what about phalloplasty for women? There is nothing against it anywhere.

Not to mention that Deuteronomy is full of other wonderful laws we no longer follow.

[_asbestosman]

See, if you got a clue, asbestosman, you would realize that the discussion of intersex people is not really a red herring at all, but an issue that makes the natural question arise about why the Church can't stand LGBT people.

Actually I think it is a red-herring. If we continue down this path, we may as well use identical twins, siamese twins, chimeras, and twins-growing as tumors to try proving that the concept of a soul / spirit is nonsensical. You can thank The Dude for a book he recommended, Challenging Nature, which more or less made that argument.

So I could be wrong about doctors. That does not surprise me. I fail to see why God couldn't set things right for the people who fall under that category. Even if millions, nay billions of people fall into that category it does not matter. For most of us gender is pretty clear. To muck with that seems to be anything but faith in God's plan for us.

By the way, I think the church would sooner disavow claims to the priesthood and historicity of the Book of Mormon than to perform homosexual temple marriages. Note I said think, not hope.

[_Jersey Girl]

ab man

For all we know, God actually knows which gender the doctor or whoever will eventually choose in cases of truly ambiguous gender and therefore sends a spirit of the appropriate gender into that body.

I'm going to disagree with you for the sake of argument, ab man. Perhaps God does know which gender the doctor or whoever will choose. What does that say about other types of developmental abnormalities? Fetus in fetu, conjoined twins, Down syndrome, spina bifida all come to mind. The case of ambiguous genitalia is no different than those.

In the case of Fetus in fetu or parasitic twin, what spirit might you think God would send into the body of the parasitic twin?