Did Oaks just say that gender isn?????t eternal?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_I have a question
_Emeritus
Posts: 9749
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2015 8:01 am

Did Oaks just say that gender isn’t eternal?

Post by _I have a question »

“Where will this lead?” is also important in choosing how we label or think of ourselves. Most important, each of us is a child of God with a potential destiny of eternal life. Every other label, even including occupation, race, physical characteristics, or honors, is temporary or trivial in eternal terms. Don’t choose to label yourselves or think of yourselves in terms that put a limit on a goal for which you might strive.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... s?lang=eng

What is Oaks suggesting here? He seems to be saying that whether or not you are a physical female or male is temporary or trivial in eternal terms. That your physical sexual organs are either temporary or trivial. That doesn’t fit with what I understand Mormon doctrine to be on the subject.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
_Meadowchik
_Emeritus
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am

Re: Did Oaks just say that gender isn’t eternal?

Post by _Meadowchik »

I have a question wrote:
“Where will this lead?” is also important in choosing how we label or think of ourselves. Most important, each of us is a child of God with a potential destiny of eternal life. Every other label, even including occupation, race, physical characteristics, or honors, is temporary or trivial in eternal terms. Don’t choose to label yourselves or think of yourselves in terms that put a limit on a goal for which you might strive.

https://www.LDS.org/general-conference/ ... s?lang=eng

What is Oaks suggesting here? He seems to be saying that whether or not you are a physical female or male is temporary or trivial in eternal terms. That your physical sexual organs are either temporary or trivial. That doesn’t fit with what I understand Mormon doctrine to be on the subject.


So it's not important, but it is important. It has no eternal consequences, except it does. I have to say, this makes it all so clear!
_Meadowchik
_Emeritus
Posts: 1900
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am

Re: Did Oaks just say that gender isn’t eternal?

Post by _Meadowchik »

The trick here is that these trivial things should not bother us. Even if they are so incongruent with God's will as to separate us from Him and us from our families eternally if we transgress them, they should not be important to us now. Just obey.
_jfro18
_Emeritus
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 9:08 pm

Re: Did Oaks just say that gender isn’t eternal?

Post by _jfro18 »

I think he's trying to say that physical characteristics like being blind, losing an arm, etc are temporary.

They'll NEVER say gender is eternal.

What I do love, however, is Oaks saying that race is temporary... the always indirect assertion that we will all be white and delightsome in heaven.
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: Did Oaks just say that gender isn’t eternal?

Post by _Maksutov »

Oaks know about this like he knows about white salamanders. :lol: :lol: :lol:
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
Post Reply