What an exciting weekend we’ve had; it seems like we’re bound to be kept on our toes by the unexpected in 2016. Although many would argue that nothing the Nelsons shared are unexpected. I’ve just been thinking and pondering about our obsession with LGBTQ+ issues lately.
I was reminded of Patrick Mason’s comments on the variety of worship and experiences within our faith (“Planted” again, but this time I can’t remember if it’s from the podcast with Gina Colvin, Dan Wotherspoon, and Boyd Peterson). He spoke about how individual our intelligences were/must have been back in the day when God came across them and offered us an opportunity to be born as spirits and come to earth and become as he is. It struck me as profound to see each and every one of the billions (?) of spirits had once been a unique intelligence, and as such we will all experience our faith journeys as incredibly unique and impossible to be carbon copies of each other. Of course we’ve got to welcome a variety of experiences of faith within our tent of membership.
I really wonder if intelligences had gender, our proclamation psuedo-states that they did (“gender is eternal”) but we really don’t know the difference between intelligences and the transformation that happened as they became spirit bodies. Anyway, just interesting to ponder on the fact. Do we really believe that always-existing intelligences existed in a heterosexual, binary gender?
My wonder at this unknown is what makes me so doubtful of people’s constructions of what the next life will be like: my eternal role as a woman is to birth and nurture spirits? weren’t they organized without a celestial uterus? Eternal increase could refer to our ability to create and organize in ways unfathomable. Anyways, my thoughts of late. I know it’s not important in the grand scheme of things to wonder about the unknowable mysteries of God, but our insistence that we are certain about it being an exact way sure is causing a lot of problems in people’s lives today.
Wheat & Tares 
“Do we really believe that always-existing intelligences existed in a heterosexual, binary gender?”
How very boring has to be my response if so… I don’t believe that.
Belief is intellectual surrender. Why accept something as true that has no evidence to support it? You have good reason to doubt, if you wish to even spend that much effort on it, “people’s constructions,” especially when they present them as facts and explanations for the way they want the world to be.
Gender could have had a beginning and still be eternal. Like an infinitely long line that has a starting point.
Also, it should be noted that the concept that pre-spirit “intelligence” existed as separate individuls is speculation, not doctrine.
Apostles have come down on both sides of the issue.
On the side of spirit children being created as “drops” from a “pool of intelligence” and that we didn’t exist as individuals prior to Spirit birth we have B.R. McConkie, J.F. Smith(Sr.) C.W. Penrose, and P.P. Pratt.
On the other side, arguing for individual intelligences, we have O. Pratt, W. Woodruff, B.H. Roberts, and (most recently) D.T. Christofferson.
Pick your favorite team. I wish I had a tub of popcorn, and Bill & Ted’s time machine. It would make a most excellent debate.
I do believe in Eternal Gender, but only as far as the pre-Earth, Earth, and port-Earth existences. Beyond those there’s precious little to go on compared to the precious little we know of these. I also don’t believe that there is a solid correlation between our spiritual and mortal genders, as the variation that exists can’t slot everyone easily into one or the other.
Aside from mortal procreation, we have to little idea of what gender actually means, and none but supposition on why one (or more) of each gender is necessary for progression.
I think the immediate afterlife is going to have a lot of time spent on relearning what we once new and having severe PTSD. Having immediate clarity of your whole life can’t be easy to take in.
We know that God is both male and female, and we understand them to be a man and a woman. But I like to think that the binary view is simply a convenience for us, since that’s the most common expression of gender. But since transgender and non binary is more than just an infrequent occasion, I leave open the idea that God, both male and female, can be any number of forms outside of our binary ideal. The binary model works for me, since that fits my experience, but I also allow for the possibility that the male/female God is any other manifestation of the sacred female/male.
“We know that God is both male and female” What??
Is this referring to heavenly parents? I’m unaware of anyone assigning any divine being a bi-role.
Verse 3 from O My Father
This seems to imply God is a father, and there is a Heavenly mother, not a combination of male-female.
I think HDP is referring to the fact that Elohim is plural, and I’ve heard it interpreted as when referring to God it means Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother.
Other Clark: thanks for the info, I have only ever heard it taught to me that our spirits were created from intelligences.
Sometimes I wonder if we understand God to be a white male and there to be a mother and families grouped together because it makes the most sense to our mortal understanding. But also relationships are where the most pain/joy/growth are found and theologically there’s something to that that I don’t think we’ve fully uncovered.
To understand what I mean, think of god and God; the former is a position, an order, a calling, a state; the latter is the individual God we know. We know that in order to become exalted we must be married in the temple. A man without a woman cannot become a god. A woman without a man cannot become a god. Therefore, there is no such thing as a male only god or a woman only god. There is a man God, but only because He has a woman God which makes him such. There is a woman God, only because She has a man God which makes her such. Thus, god can only be male AND female because both halves are needed.
In our current teaching, we understand god to be God the Father and God the Mother, two separate individuals in our commonly-held binary role. What I am suggesting is that I simply make room for that understanding to be presented as such because that’s how we commonly understand male/female, while at the same time allowing for other interpretations of the male god female god. I believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things, and I’d like to think this is one of them.
LDS conceptions of eternity are built upon our unique celebration of THIS life. Our theology takes our experience of mortal life and makes a heaven out of it, as Joseph Smith said “heaven will be like this life, but coupled with eternal glory.” Whether or not these conceptions are literal realities, they serve as allegories for God’s love, which wishes to express itself in ways in which we can understand, and the most powerful way we as humans can understand love, is through our experience of gendered happy family. Therefore God expresses His love by promising this in eternal glory. But what we are really promised is an infinite abundance. In the context of infinite abundance, our mortal gender and familial limitations don’t really make rational sense.
Nevertheless, we know from science, that all life perpetuates itself through gendered sexuality. If God is somehow a physical part of this life we see all around us, then it makes sense that gender could play a part in Him. But if God is more of a “spirit” or force, and life is mortal and temporary, then gender wouldn’t be so important.
Nate, I love your description – it tracks nicely with my thoughts. The only place where I deviate is that I’m not ready to assign earthly, mortal biological restrictions to Godhood. I see room for a physical God that is able to perpetuate through means other than the one we’re held to.
God is certainly aware of other methods of procreation. Amoebas by cell division, plants by cuttings, worms by dividing the entire creature in two.
Joseph Smith was adamant that animals have souls, so where does lat leave the eternal nature of creatures like the gender-bending clownfish (who changes sexuality in mortality)?
Threadjack ended, back to the OP
Other Clark, I like this threadjack, like Nate’s it dovetails nicely with my thoughts. I just want to leave room for other interpretations of gender and godhood. Like I said, the traditional one works for me, it looks like my life, I can relate to it. But I also realize that it doesn’t fit everyone’s current life, and it may turn out that there are other variations that we don’t yet know about. I don’t want to close the door, and cause pain to those for whom the current model doesn’t fit, if in fact I don’t know that there aren’t other models of godhood. I want my transgender brothers and sisters, I want my non binary brothers
Biological sex in mortal human bodies ends up more a spectrum rather than a dichotomy. There are a number of factors that ultimately determine the final physiology and ability to reproduce. Also, as The Other Clark stated, both sexual and asexual reproduction occur naturally.
I’m partial to the idea of gendered deities, so I’m good with the idea of gendered spirit bodies. I tend to see intelligences as asexual – primitive cosmic sparks that could be molded either direction. Pure speculation.
We know from scripture, that not all mortal life perpetuates itself through gendered sexuality.
The first man was created by the gods commanding elements to organize. The first woman by borrowing some cells. The most perfect man by Divine insemination.
Science is cool. Tetrahymena thermophila is fun, Seven sexes and 21 combinations. Glad those little critters can figure it out.
And there’s my favorites slime molds and the classic Dictyostelium discoideum. When I picture the celestial kingdom maybe every member are resurrected individuals but together form god and new spirits are produced from a fruiting body.
And insects. Maybe when we die we undergo a metamorphosis. And what’s that weird relationship between fig and wasp.
And there’s Symbion pandora. Go check this –http://creaturecast.org/archives/2277-creaturecast-life-on-a-lobster-mouth
My point being, I think we don’t have an effing clue about gender and eternity. It just may be possibly way cooler than anything we can imagine.
The purpose of the (LDS) Values Institute was kept a secret from the general public, but generally comprised of: combating homosexuality, doing research on homosexuality, fighting homosexuality within the church, and writing a (anti-gay) book to verify the LDS church’s position on homosexuality.
The idea was proposed by Dallin Oaks at a meeting (of the Boards of Trustees at BYU, and the Unified Church Educational System) on September 1, 1976.
The public was only told that it would conduct “research that would assist in preventing and changing problem behaviors which lead people away from eternal life.” The Values Institute was to be provided resources and assistance from LDS Social Services.
Aversion Therapy at BYU Electroshock Therapy and Pornography. In addition to the Values Institute and the Aversion Therapies conducted at BYU, there were also anti-homosexual purges done at the school, and even sting-operations to catch and weed out homosexual students.
Don Harryman — A Personal Story of Gay Aversion Therapy at BYU
Timeline of Mormon Thinking About Homosexuality
Howard – we’re talking about gender, not sexuality. I know you enjoy trotting out “shocking” details about things that have happened in the Church, but it doesn’t seem relevant to this post.
Saying that gender is an essential characteristic is problematic and imprecise. It has completely different implications depending on what is meant:
– gender identity (which doesn’t always match external genitalia)
– gender roles (which differ from society to society and are without a doubt man-made, but are certainly found in the rest of the Proclamation)
– biological sex (which obviously doesn’t always match gender identity, and is sometimes ambiguous)
– biology = destiny (which is kind of a dumb idea also peppered throughout the Proclamation that we are limited or uniquely gifted based on our sex and that all women are one way and all men are another way – this is demonstrably false)
Basically, imprecise language creates problems but also wiggle room for varied interpretation.
One of my first posts sought to understand which definition is intended in the Proclamation: http://mormonmatters.org/2009/08/04/gender-vs-sex/
And in another post, Mormon Heretic explored this topic: http://www.wheatandtares.org/10108/is-gender-really-eternal/
Frank Pellett,
LDS gender essentialism is often used to rationalize bias against gays or gay sexuality, in fact you seem to be making that argument here by saying we’re talking about gender, not sexuality.
If you read the timeline I posted you would see that the church’s concern regarding gays is relatively new, seems to have increased with time and therefore clearly not eternal in it’s importance. My understand from previous research is that the church eventually became embarrassed by gay members attending bathhouses etc and decided to do something about it.
But why has it become such a big deal, so overly large that children of gays must be singled out and treated differently (discrimination by definition) than children of other even more serious sinners?
Regarding relevance to this post: Oaks (directly) and Monson (less directly) are reported to have been involved in some of the “shocking” stuff I posted above. They would look pretty silly and incompetent now if they were to suddenly reverse course on gays after running such intrusive false programs. Much better to insist God is the bigot than themselves! I think the policy is about avoiding lawsuits and saving face for some well intended but wrong guys who are now just a couple old farts.
There is some tendency for some GAs to conflate gender identity with sexual orientation. There was a large fireside with youth (I think YM/YW age) in the last year in which the speaker allowed Q&A. When asked about the church’s intransigent stance on homosexuality, he had a young man and a young woman stand and said to look in their eyes. He said that there was no girl inside that young man’s eyes and no boy inside that young woman’s eyes. It was an appalling example of ignorance. Gay people don’t identify as the other sex! They are attracted to their same sex. This kind of ignorance prevails in old movies, but it’s long been debunked.
These are two articles I really like in dealing with the biological problems with “gender” as an eternal characteristic:
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/055-38-41.pdf (Short 2-page article. Good historical overview of doctrinal statements on the matter. Gives a paragraph to Transsexual individuals, but doesn’t cover sexual preferences.)
Click to access Dialogue_V12N03_111.pdf
(Longer article from 1979, but it’s still a good overview of intersex individuals and trying to fit them in our doctrinal framework. Also avoids sexual preference/LGBT issues. My husband helps intersex kids at his work, so I hear about them more often.)
The real question this invokes is whether or not a divine feminine is necessary (or a divine male for that matter, but the default treatment is that a divine male exists).
Lots of issues that come up from there.
I do think the problem we have is that we don’t even truly understand what gender is.
“And there’s my favorites slime molds and the classic Dictyostelium discoideum. When I picture the celestial kingdom maybe every member are resurrected individuals but together form god and new spirits are produced from a fruiting body.”
😉
Ok, but slime molds have over 40 sexes. Though the divine choir is a concept (without the fruiting body) and intelligent slime molds were a fictional concept I used for stories with my oldest before her sister was born.
“I’m not ready to assign earthly, mortal biological restrictions to Godhood.”
I think we often create God in our own (perceived) image.
Anyway, I’ve been distracted by readings of the Ark (with Noah) being a metaphor for the divine female birthing the human race.
Fairly new research, I tried to find a good google link for it and only got old material.