On Transgender Transitioning & the LDS Proclamation on the Family: Where is the Sin?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the LDS Church) purports to be the restored gospel and church of Jesus Christ on the earth today, directed by Christ through his prophets on earth, the purpose of which is to bring the world population, or as much as is willing, to Christ and his way of living as expressed in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great, and the Doctrine and Covenants, among other scripture already revealed or yet to be revealed.  The point is to bring people to salvation thru Christ so they can avoid suffering the full load of justice demanded by those who have been harmed by people’s aggression, allowing the mercy of Christ to pay off that justice through his Atonement and thru their sincere repentance, which demands a change in the heart and actions of the repenting individual, restitution where possible, and enduring on the path of Christ to the end.  The purpose is to bring humanity back into the presence of God and to the fullest extent of happiness that they prefer according to the level of Christlike living they are desirous and willing to live by.  The LDS church purports to be the current authorized spokesman, as it were, of God to his modern day children, whether Israelite or Gentile, regardless of sex/gender, ethnicity, skin color, stature, economic situation, etc.  God is no respecter of persons, and He speaks to all via a variety of methods, whether it be personal revelation or general revelation to all of his children as a whole via prophets, seers, and revelators.  The LDS Church therefore claims to have the authority from God to be those official prophets, seers, and revelatory for the humanity as a whole, as it relates to general revelation that concerns the salvation of all of humanity.  Taking them at their word by exercising faith on their claims, the LDS Church also purports that their “Proclamation on the Family,” conceived and published in the 1995 by the LDS First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 Apostles, the governing body of the LDS Church, is modern day revelation and doctrine from God that affects their policies on Homosexual, Bisexual, and Transgender members and non-members alike.  It has been used by many in LDS society, including by LDS Church authorities via its policies, to claim or infer either that Trans people cannot and/or should not exist at all, logically & scientifically, let alone in God’s Kingdom or be condoned by God and that to be Trans or to transition to any degree, medically and/or socially is sinful, the result of which may affect their status and standing as members in the LDS Church. To be fair, the Church’s official stance is that, like in simply being homosexual, there is no sin in experience gender dysphoria, in being Transgender. Rather their claim is that what one does in relation to experiencing gender dysphoria, via transitioning, can be sinful. The claims that simply being Trans is sinful, degenerate, and evil come more from misguided lay members, especially on social media platforms like X, formerly Twitter, Facebook, etc. However, I hope to show in this article that not only are lay members of the LDS church or other forms of Christianity making these claims about simply being Trans being sinful or degeneracy wrong, but I also hope to show that the LDS Church’s stance that transitioning is sinful to be wrong and misguided as well.

Similar to an article written and published by Bryce Cook, an LDS father of two Gay children titled What Do We Know of God’s Will for His LGBT Children?: An Examination of the LDS Church’s Position on Homosexuality, I have undertaken to examine the common claims and appeals to the “Proclamation on the Family” critics of Trans people use to try to condemn and misrepresent transitioned Transgender people, members or not, as sinful and contrary to the will of and ways of God.  I have thus gone through the Proclamation section by section and discussed how these uses of it by anti-Trans people or those who simply think they are sinful in transitioning or somehow dangerous to society are misinterpretations of what the Proclamation actually says and could very possibly mean by its wording, contrary to their positions on the matter.  I go through section by section and offer different interpretations, accompanied by logical explanations and scriptural and real life examples of how this notion that Trans people transitioning are sinful is very possibly, if not probably wrong and that the Proclamation does not indeed condemn transitioning Transgender people as sinful. Instead I attempt to show that the Proclamation, read in a different light, shows that transitioned Trans people can be just as good, moral, followers of Christ, whether single or in a family setting as Cis-gender members of the LDS Church and be just as pleasing to God as the “married one man, one woman” form of family.  In short, I attempt to show how the Proclamation actually might be in complete harmony with the idea that transitioned Transgender individuals, especially LDS members, are not sinning or sinful in their transition and that there in actuality is no contradiction between the Proclamation and transitioned Transgender people.  Throughout this article, I repeatedly ask the question to everyone’s claims of sin regarding transitioned Trans people, in the Church or not: where is the sin in Trans people transitioning & even forming loving, Christ centered families?   

The proclamation begins with:

“We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”

So far, there isn’t really anything problematic here, as far as the wording goes.  Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, this is true, and there is scriptural canon to back this up, namely in Gospels of the Bible, teachings on marriage from Jesus himself, and from the Book of Mormon, teachings from Jacob on husbands having only one wife, the story of the creation of Adam and Eve & their fall itself, etc.. But that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God does not inherently mean any other form of marriage is NOT ordained of God. 
That the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children is again, not in itself inherently problematic by those words alone.  The LDS faith teaches, mostly in harmony with the rest of Christendom and other forms of religion that human beings all belong to one human family, that we are all literally siblings and literal children of God, the Father, with Christ and Satan, among other prominent Christian figures, being out literal siblings. Jesus constantly acknowledges that he is on his Father’s business, doing the will of the Father, and that if we wish to know the Father, we only need look no further than Jesus.  Several times in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and in the First Vision of Jospeh Smith, Jr., the Father bears record of Christ as his “beloved Son,” with the commandment that we “hear him.”  So far, so good.  That there is a Heavenly Father must logically indicate there is a Heavenly Mother.  And as one large family, of course our Father, Mother, and first born elder brother, Christ, want the best for us and to return to live with the family in the eternities in whatever capacity we are willing.  However, God the Father, God the Mother and the Son of God, Christ, know full well that some of the children of the Heavenly Family may choose otherwise, and thus their agency to choose good, evil, or a mix of the two, with the possibilities of repentance through Christ’s Atonement was preserved.  And knowing that His children would choose other paths than God the Father’s exact path, he has created “many mansions in his house,” (John 14:2) i.e. many levels or realms of salvation & exaltation and eternal living, some of which are in His presence, others of which are in Christ’s presence only, while still others are in the presence of the Holy Spirit, for God the Father cannot tolerate the least amount of “sin” in his actual realm.  

There are 4 primary levels, realms, so-called “kingdoms,” or degrees of glory, namely Outer Darkness, i.e. Hell, the Telestial, the Terrestrial, and the Celestial, each with their own varying degrees or levels of glory within them, at least regarding the latter three.  These are the many mansions in the Father’s house.  Now, who inherits these different degrees of glory in the afterlife will be of importance, but not for this article. What’s important right now is to know that God has provided a way for his entire family, those who at least believe in Christ at some point  and repent to some degree, either now or in the next life, to obtain some degree of happiness and bliss according to their desires here and hereafter. Joseph Smith said in D&C 76 that the lowest of these degrees of glory, the Telestial, surpasses all our understanding, having the glory the stars, inferring that it is even more beautiful and happier than the earth we live on now in its fallen, temporal state even with all it’s natural beauty and happiness.  The only ones who will be truly unhappy and experience no form of bliss, joy or exaltation of any kind are those who inhabit Outer Darkness, i.e. those who refuse to believe on Christ and refuse to live like Christ to any degree and instead rebel completely against God and choose to live like Satan himself. If God creates a human family, he will of course wish to provide a means to save them from the effects of sin, i.e. justice, so as to provide mercy, and provide a place for his children according to the type of life they wish to live, both in our earth life and in our post-earth life.  So far, so good. But still, where is the sin in being Trans and transitioning?  There’s nothing in this section of the Proclamation that condemns it.     

Marriage & Role Family: 

Jesus in the Bible said that marriage and the laws of marriage won’t be for everyone. Not everyone will be married, in this life or the next.  But that doesn’t mean they are cast out of or have no role in the family, just as unmarried family members are not cast out or have no role to play in our earthly families.  The family being central to God’s plans of the eternal destiny of His children does not inherently mean ALL of His children will or must get married and start their own families, in this life or the next or end up damned, fallen, or in rebellion.  It doesn’t even mean they cannot achieve the Celestial realm to dwell with Christ & God. Children today never end up getting married for a multitude of reasons and are still able to live happy and fulfilled lives in connection with their earthly families, as long as they live in a non-aggressive way that makes them safe & tolerable to have around. Notice how the Proclamation doesn’t so much define a family as one thing and one thing only, but rather, that it merely states that a family consisting of “one married man and woman” plus whatever offspring they produce in whatever form is ordained of God, which in itself does not preclude or prohibit any other form of “family,” i.e. families consisting of Trans people or Homosexual families.  Saying one thing specifically is ordained of God does not logically follow that it is the ONLY thing ordained of God and that all others things different from it are NOT ordained of God.  Just because the marriage of a man and a woman and the family they produce is ordained of God doesn’t conclude that other forms of families are NOT ordained of God and are therefore sinful or wicked.  Notice also how there is no definition of what a “man” or a “woman” is and what a “man” and a “woman” must be.  It does not say “biologically born XY chromosomes people” for “man,” nor does it say “biologically born XX chromosomes people” for “woman.”  It merely says that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children,” nothing more, nothing less.

What Does “Eternal” Mean?

Regarding biological sex and gender, the scriptures are silent on the matter except to say that God created all things male and female and commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth.  That those categories of “male and female” are eternal, there is no question, just as the law of opposites of good and evil, life and death, God and Satan, etc. are eternal. But, eternal does not always mean “no change.” That the categories of male and female are eternal, AKA eternal Godly truths, does not inherently mean or logically follow that individuals are eternally fixed as one biological sex & their socially constructed gender or the other based on the genetic hormonal accidents of birth in this imperfect life.  D&C 19:4-12 says that eternal punishment, i.e. God’s punishment, does not necessarily mean eternal suffering, or that there is no end to the suffering/torment. Herein comes the relevancy of the parable of the Prodigal Son, wherein the prodigal son rebelled against his father and went off and lived a riotous life of sin and unrighteous living, yet returned to his father when his money ran out, humbled and willing to work as his father’s servant for his food.  The father welcomes his son back with joyous celebration, for he was lost and is now found and has humbled himself, or been forced to be humbled by his choices, and has repented.  Logically, D&C 19: 7 and the Prodigal Son parable show that there must be a forgiveness and repentance process even after the Final judgement where wicked yet truly repentent individuals can work their way back into God’s grace, perhaps after paying the utter most farthing of justice for their unrepentant lives of harming others on earth.  They show that though principles are eternal, status within those principles is not and is subject to change.  God’s judgments based on eternal principles are eternal, never changing, meaning God will always condone good and condemn evil, but what changes is the status of those who act within the boundaries of those eternal principles.  This who commit evil and repent are offered mercy, whether they pay justice or Christ does.  Either way, justice is paid and mercy is given once justice has been paid, and a change occurs in status via this repentance.  Good and evil and justice and mercy are eternally fixed principles that exist independent of and simultaneously with God, and God habitually and desirously abiding by those principles, choosing good over evil, is what makes God, God, along with his knowledge and thus his power.  But while those principles never change and while God’s adherence to them never changes, there can be a change in an individual’s status in relation to God and his salvation by God, via repentance and thus there can be an end to the suffering one faces as a result of choosing sin/evil.  If this is the case with good and evil and justice and mercy, why can it also not be true with other eternal principles, such as “male” and “female?”  Why can there not also be a change in one’s status as “male” or “female” if one desires it?    

While the categories of male and female are eternal, why must one’s biological sex and gender identification remain static and fixed also?  Human beings, as God’s children, are individuals, and are as diverse as the animal world and the sands on the seashore.  No two are exactly alike in any way.  There are many similarities, to be certain, but no two human beings are exactly alike.  Elder Joseph B. Wirthlin once said in 2008 General Conference talk entitled “Concern For The One,” that while we should all strive to be like Christ, to live as he did and treat others as he did, that does not mean we must all be alike in every way.  To be Christlike is not to be carbon copies of each other, looking, behaving, thinking, and acting exactly alike in every single way as robots.  It simply means to live as Christ did and treat others as he “commanded,” i.e. advised us to do so as to obtain happiness in this life and the next.  If a child of God is truly more happy as the opposite sex of what they were accidentally genetically and hormonally born as or as a mixture of the two eternal sex categories of male and females, why would God deny them that happiness by forcing them to be something they do not wish to be for eternity?  And if God is Omnipotent and Omniscient, all powerful, having created all in the world through scientific means and having created humanity and their bodies in the first place, where do we, as fallible, minuscule human beings get off in trying to limit God’s knowledge & thus power by saying He cannot alter one of his children’s biological sex characteristics and their gender and make one a woman instead of a man, a man instead of a woman, or a mix of the two?  

Christians believe that Jesus and other prophets performed all manner of miracles that cannot be explained and are thus miraculous.  Jesus healed all manner of afflictions, making the maimed, lame, mute, deaf, blind, & ill immediately whole, simply by speech or touch, even raising the (long) dead back to life. He can somehow cast a crowd of spirit demons into a physical herd of swine, be born of a 12-14 year old virgin, alter substances, raise himself from being 3 days dead, make himself invisible to some but not to others, & even be 3 different people AND a dove landing on himself as he speaks to himself from the heavens as he is baptized, all at once.  Some Christians even believe he can turn bread and wine into his literal body & blood. But no, a man can’t become a woman or a woman a man, cuz “Science!”  What makes a miracle a miracle is that we simply cannot explain how it occurs.  And the reason we cannot explain how it occurs is because we don’t have the knowledge of what makes it occur, at least not right now.  The miracles of the scriptures, whether of prophets or Jesus himself all likely happened via some form of scientific process using a law of science we as of then or still as of yet don’t know or comprehend while God, in his wisdom of age and experience does.  For example, James E. Talmage in his book Jesus the Christ offered the scientific explanation behind the miracle of human flight.  In human flight via airplanes, we have discovered how to manipulate or work around other laws of science, such as gravity, using other laws of science, such as thrust, lift, and aerodynamics to temporarily work around the constance law of gravity.  Gravity is not cancelled.  It’s still in force.  But it is temporarily worked around or manipulated so as to not apply for the moments we use other scientific laws to work around it.  The miracles of the scriptures can be explained in the same way, albeit we don’t necessarily know the scientific laws that were used to work around other scientific laws while not cancelling them out.  In other words, the miracles of the scriptures can be explained by way of logic and science, even if we lack the specific knowledge as to how they occurred and what scientific laws they used to come about.  Take any of our technological capabilities from today into the past around Jesus’s time, and the people of those times would consider them miracles.  That they can be explained via science does not make them any less miracles to them, nor for that matter any less miracles for us.  God’s power comes from his knowledge, which includes the eternal laws of morality and the laws of science and nature.  And His knowledge comes through his age, gained through eons of experience.  As Joseph Smith once taught in the the King Follet Discourse, the great mystery behind God is that he was once long ago a man on his own earth as we are now.  God’s great secret, like Bill Murray said in the film “Groundhog Day,” is that he’s been around so long he knows everything.       

If all things are possible with God through his greater knowledge and power than us, and God is all powerful, so much so as to create humanity and the human body from the beginning and the very world we live on and all that lives on it, then how can he not have the power and ability to make someone another biological sex and gender if that is their desire for happiness?  

Ether 3 & the Spirit Body of Christ:

Some critics may point to the Brother of Jared saying that because he saw the full spirit body of Jesus Christ as he would come in the world in his own due time, and Jesus was male then and was male on earth, is still male, & will be male at the time of his Second Coming, as per D&C 49:22, this must logically mean that gender is eternally fixed for everyone.  But this line of thinking is to forget choice and agency. Perhaps pre-mortal, spirit Jesus, embodied earthly Jesus, and resurrected Jesus all remain male, not because it was dictated arbitrarily by the Father or was just arbitrarily decided by random acts of nature that it should be that way, with Jesus having no choice in the matter, but rather, because that is what Jesus CHOSE and wanted to be for his eternal life?  Correlation is not causation.  That Jesus appeared male in his spirit, earthly, and resurrected body is not proof that he was always that way and would always be that way by arbitrary dictates or natural (biological/chemical/physical) occurrences.  Rather it is merely proof that he and he alone (as he and he alone is the only subject we know anything about regarding his spiritual, earthly, and resurrected appearances) was and is that way, with it being entirely possible, indeed logically probably that he was and is that male because he wanted it that way, as even he had and has agency.  Of course, prophecy has some to do with as well, as the Messiah would be called the Son of Man and the Son of God, though even here the prophecy is not the causation of his being male, but rather a mere description of who Christ would be.  And even with fulfilling prophecy, Christ still had and has agency, and he willingly chooses to fulfill the prophecy and do the will of the Father, i.e. be the savior of all humankind by paying justice so he can give out mercy to this who repent. In short, maybe Jesus was and is male simply because he chooses to be male?  The scriptures describing Jesus’s pre-mortal body, his resurrected body, and the form his body will take at the time of the second coming, i.e. not that of a woman but of a man, cannot logically be applied to every spirit, human, and resurrected child of God that has and will ever exist.  It applies to Jesus as an individual, and he alone, as the scriptures in the Book of Ether only talk of Christ and his spirit body, not anybody else’s.  You cannot make generalizations for all of humanity and how they were, are, and will ever be in their appearances and sexual & gender identities based off of the description of one person, even if he is the Son of God.  His behavioral attributes are to be followed by all of humanity, absolutely, but Jesus as a person in his body are not to be taken as representative of all humanity, just as Elder Wirthlin described when he said that we are all meant to be like Christ in our use of agency and moral behavior, but that doesn’t necessarily follow that all will look and be alike in all other ways.    


The Proclamation continues on by saying:

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. 

Again, human beings are created in God’s image, i.e. in the image of a biped Homo Sapient, consisting of a body and a spirit inside of it, with a brain, two arms, two hands, two legs, two feet, 10 fingers and toes, several internal organs, blood, bone, flesh, hair, etc. And human beings are created, biologically, male or female, although there are rare cases of intersex individuals being born due to chromosomal or hormonal issues during development of the fetus in the womb.  But this again does not imply an eternal nature to what we happen to be born as in this world. It simply means that these principles are eternal principles, having always existed and will always exist.  It doesn’t mean they are fixed once you are born a male or a female, as discussed already.  I see no reason why God would condemn someone to a life as something they do not wish to be, particularly when He values our agency over everything else, even His sincere desire for us to return to Him.  And seeing as God is all powerful, I see no reason why He couldn’t nor wouldn’t let someone change their sex/gender, in this life in the ways they can (due to our limitations of knowledge) or in the next life in ways vastly extended by greater knowledge.  God wants us to be happy above all else (“Men are that they might have Joy, 2 Nephi 2:25), aside from preserving our agency, and thus He has created many rooms in his mansion, i.e. many degrees of glory, salvation, and exaltation to make space for all of his children who repent in all their varying differences.  Thus, I ask again: where is the sin in wishing to be something different than what we currently are, so long as we continue to follow and live like Christ as best as we can?  Where is the sin in someone who happened by accident of birth to be born one sex desiring to be the opposite, a mix of the two, or fluid between the two sexes?  Is there no place in God’s domain and realm for such people who wish to be like Christ and God the Father in the ways they can and wish to be while also being different from what sex and gender they happened to be born as?  Where is the sin?  If our eternal and divine destiny is to become like God as much as we can or care to become, and sex and gender has no bearing on becoming like God and Christ, then what would it matter to God and Christ if some of His children chose to become like Him as a female instead of a male, a male instead of a female, or a mix of or fluidity between the two, if that is what they desire?  Where is the sin?      

This notion that eternal means fixed and unchangeable is disproved in other animal species also created by God to fulfill the same commandments to multiply, replenish, and subdue the earth, where sex change is not only possible, but a common occurrence. There are several species of fish, amphibians, and other animal species where sex changes occur naturally by way of evolutionary processes. The clownfish and the Barramundi fish are probably the most famous of all the animal species where sex and gender change is possible by natural, evolutionary means.  The biology behind gender dysphoria in humans is still being studied, and it may be that there are, in human beings, natural, biological/chemical explanations behind gender dysphoria.  But we know for certain in Clownfish that all male clownfish have the potential to change their sex and gender when the situation is right, like when the female of a group dies. Again, I include both “sex” and “gender” here for a very specific reason, because while “sex” refers to one’s biological, i.e. genetic make up and bodily features and functions,  “gender” defines more how an individual behaves & is seen within a social group.  And this is a very important thing to note, especially in relation to the clownfish (but also likely the Barramundi fish as well), for in the Clownfish, at least, the change begins to occur first in the brain and the sex/gender changing clownfish begins to act and be seen and, most importantly, accepted by the rest of clownfish society as now female. The sex change occurs in the brain even before any other sexual changes begin elsewhere in the body. When the sex & gender change occurs in Clownfish, the largest of the males will begin to change biologically from male to female, as females are the larger and the aggressive & dominant in the species. This change occurs over a period of time, with the change beginning, as aforementioned, in the brain of the changing male Clownfish and finishing eventually with the sexual organs.  Interestingly, as previously noted, in Clownfish society, males making this change begin acting as females, acting more aggressively, and have been observed to be deemed and treated as female by other females and males in their society well before the change in sexual organs, i.e. gonads, beginning during the brain changing stage.  This social acceptance of sex & gender change, i.e. “transgenderism,” is something Clownfish have been able to do, accepting those that change their sex and gender, even at the superficial stage, accepting them as what they say they are, something that human beings in their arrogance, fear, and hatred have yet to accomplish.  This says a lot about human beings as a species: the most intelligent & most developed in so many ways, the ones created in God’s image, yet they are the least intelligent & lesser developed in so many other ways, including in their inability to socially accept people for being who they say they are.  The other interesting bit about Clownfish, at least, which may also apply to Barramundi fish and perhaps other sex changing animal species though I’ve not been able to find sources on the subject, is that while sex chromosomes do determine the sex and thus gender of the fish at birth, as demonstrated, the sex does not always remain the same, and when the sex does change, the sex chromosomes themselves do not change. Rather, the changes in sex, in Clownfish at least, occur epigenetically via hormone changes in the brain and body, thus altering social cues as well. The sex chromosomes appear to stay the same. This goes along with my earlier argument against one’s birth sex/gender dictating one’s eternal sex/gender, that just as it’s possible for suffering from sin to end with repentance, so also is it logically possible that one may change one’s sex and therefore gender if one so desires. What biological reality in many animal species, including humans, demonstrates is that for the vast majority of animals, including people, chromosomes merely determine one’s sex at development in the womb and birth. They do not forever, fixedly determine the sex and gender of every animal species past development and birth, as several fish species, in the very least, demonstrate. Chromosomes in Clownfish, at least, don't always determine what sex they remain.  Similarly, as humans have developed a means of altering sexual characteristics in human beings via medical science and technology, i.e. via hormone replacement therapy and surgeries, at least thus far, what evolutional development over time has allowed other animal species like some fish to accomplish, chromosomes in human beings don’t always determine what sex and gender individuals remain throughout their life, at least so long as one does nothing to alter one’s sex.  In short, chromosomes are not the great, concrete, unchanging, eternal determiner of sex and gender after all. For not only have several fish and other animal species learned to alter their sex without altering their chromosomes via hormonal changes, humans too have learned to do the same thing, albeit in a related though slightly different manner. Both groups of species use hormones to affect this sex and gender change, while Humans alone has discovered surgical techniques to approach changing sexual characteristics like Gonads. And even then, further scientific and medical development in the areas of reproducing “artificial” reproductive organs is currently underway. Though, for all of humanity’s greatness and intelligence, it has yet to be able to accomplish what other animal species have been able to accomplish, social acceptance of those in the species that alter their sex and gender.  This is a sad representation of the actual lack of intelligence human beings can have when compared to other animal species.  In some ways, non-human animals are more advanced than humans themselves in treating their own kind more humanely than human beings do.  This is sad.

Though the question remains: if altering sex and gender is so grievous a sin, why does God not destroy these animals off the face of the earth?  Is it possible He made them this way?  Is it possible he made originally one male and one female so they could multiply and replenish the earth, and evolution genetic change took over the rest, allowing them to continue to multiply and replenish the earth in less ideal situations?  If it’s such an evil to change sex and gender, why does God allow it in one species and not in others?  Perhaps the answer and the reality is that changing sex and gender is not evil or a sin at all?  Perhaps it’s just a part of life for some species and for some humans?         

Parrotfish are another fish capable of sex/gender change.  Another fish species wherein all males change sex and gender into females at a certain stage of their life, wherein all that begin life as males eventually turn into females, is the Barramundi fish, previously mentioned. So, gender being not eternally fixed and unchangeable already has precedent in God’s other creations.  Why couldn’t it also be the case in human beings?  If He’s made it or allowed it to become possible by evolutionary means in some species, species of whichHe is mindful of, then why not in others such as human beings via knowledge acquisition in the medical, biological, and chemical fields of science?  The Proclamation merely says that gender is “an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”  This does not necessarily mean that one’s gender must always remain fixed throughout the premortal, mortal, and post mortal life, while still maintaining one’s identity and purpose.  If one is welcome in the Celestial degree of glory with God as an unmarried, single/celibate individual, or one who has remarried in life due to a just divorce or death of a spouse, then why cannot Trans people who have transitioned also be welcome or Homosexual people, so long as they live like Christ?  

Of course, critics will attempt to dismiss this biological reality and the logical conclusions they bring by arguing that it doesn’t matter because humans aren’t fish.  This is true.  Humans are not fish.  Humans are also not dogs, nor cats, nor elephants, nor whales, nor lizards, etc.  In other words, what does it matter if humans are not fish?  That is a straw man argument that leads nowhere.  That humans are a different animal species from fish matters not one iota.  All creatures created by God, however He created them, have their own divine purpose.  Humans alone are made in the image of God and have the unique ability, as far as we know, to become like God.  But, again, becoming like God does not mean we must all be exactly like God is every single way.  We all have the potential to become Gods as God Himself is, a father or a mother to children, a creator of life, but creating human life is not the ONLY way to become like God.  One can become like God in attributes and behavior, even a creator of life in some other way via scientific method and evolution while remaining single, even for eternity, if that be one’s wish.  And such an individual may still dwell with God, for he/she has become like God in behavior and attributes, albeit not in taking on a spouse and creating a new human family.  Perhaps one may become a God in attributes and behavior, as well as knowledge, and create only animal life or planets or some other form of creation while remaining single and not marrying and forming a human family, all while still dwelling with God Himself.  This does not negate the importance and eternal nature of the human family if one chooses to remain single and not take on the Godly attribute of human creation while still taking on the rest of God’s attributes.  For one still has a father and a mother, brothers and sisters, cousins, aunts and uncles, nephews and nieces, etc.  Family and its ties that bind us remains eternal.  But family creation is not a requirement of dwelling with God in the eternities. One can become like God without taking on that responsibility, for such is not a sin; it does not keep one from being like God is other ways and thus being able to dwell with Him in the eternities.  And why couldn’t a person born one particular sex and gender change one’s sex and gender and still become like God and dwell with Him in the eternities, whether they choose to create a new human family or not?  That human beings have the unique pleasure of being created in God’s image, i.e. as a human being, and the unique ability to become as God is now on a scale of varying degree, does not matter when it comes to pointing out the capability of various animals species, including human beings, to alter their sex and gender.  It literally does not matter that humans are not fish.  That is not an argument. It’s merely a poor attempt in the guise of an argument (though it really isn’t one) to dismiss the real argument that it is reality that humans, like fish and other animal species, CAN change their sex and gender through natural and scientific means. That humans are not fish or that humans have the unique potential to become like God unlike other animal species matters not one bit in the argument of whether humans can indeed change their sex and gender like other animals species and that it is illogical to say such is sinful. For again, I ask, where is the sin?  If it’s abomination in one species, it must necessarily be in the other.  Why would God continue to allow an abomination such as sex change to occur in any animal species if it is abomination and sinful in His eyes?  Or is it only sinful in humans?  If so, why? True, humans are the only animal species capable of sin, or so it appears, doctrinally. But why would God create or allow a species to develop by way of evolutionary change the ability to change sex while considering such to be an abomination in other species? Either it’s an abomination for all, or it’s not for any species. It just doesn’t make logical sense. There is much more complexity to sex and gender than we can possibly know, and to assume otherwise is arrogance and prideful on the part of human beings to think they’ve figured out all there is to know about the science behind sex and gender. It’s entirely possible that, like in fish and other animal species, there is nothing sinful or evil, i.e. no abomination, in human beings also changing their sex should they feel it right for them to do so.  For doing so does not prohibit one from becoming like God.  So I ask again: where is the sin?              

Critics will also attempt to dismiss these arguments by pointing out that, unlike sex changing fish, humans who change sex, particularly M2F Trnas people, are not capable of giving birth and thus they haven’t truly changed sex. To this fallacious argument, I ask in response, is a barren Cis-women, born with XX chromosomes and a womb, but otherwise incapable of getting pregnant or giving birth, or even a Cis-woman born without a womb, any less a woman because she can’t give birth? No. Women are not defined solely by their ability to get pregnant and give birth, just as men are not defined solely by their ability to ejaculate sperm from testicles. Plenty of men are not capable of ejaculating sperm for a variety of reasons, and yet they are still considered men. Men and women are not defined as such solely by the ability to procreate. That is just one possible aspect of sex and gender; it is not the final nor sole determiner, just as chromosomes are not the final or sole determiner. Human Trans women may not be able to get pregnant or give birth, as of yet, just as Trans men may not be able to produce sperm as of yet, but they very well may be able to in the not too distant future due to medical technological advancement. Artificial wombs and creation of life in them are already being explored and non-penetrative sex based procreation is already possible. If a barren Cis-woman or a barren Cis-man, a Cis-woman without a womb or a Cis-man without a penis or testicles or sperm is no less a man in every other way, then a Trans woman is no less a woman just because she can’t as of yet obtain a womb or give birth or a Trans-man no less a man because he can’t as of yet obtain sperm producing testicles. If they meet all the other social and sexual indicator qualifications, they are what they claim to be just as Cis-men and women are what they claim to be while lacking some certain aspect of womanhood or manhood. This is basic logic.                                            

Now, we are told scripturally, in the Pearl of Great Price in Moses 3, that all things were created spiritually before they were created physically or corporeally.  If sex and gender are eternal concepts that are fixed and unchangeable, how could this be that Clownfish made male spiritually are able to change their sex/gender corporeally?  And is this an abomination to God?  If so, why does he not wipe them out as a species?  Yes, yes, we all know, human beings are not fish.  But this does not matter and it doesn’t answer the question of how sex and gender can be eternal and fixed, never changing in both the spirit world and the physical, earth world, yet it does change in the corporeal, earthy world?  True, the Proclamation speaks of human beings and not other species.  But why must sex and gender be fixed and unchanging for one species, humanity, yet not for others? If one has developed the ability, via evolutionary, genetic change to alter their sex and gender, why cannot humanity, the most intelligent of God’s creations, develop their own means of bringing that possibility about by way of other natural means, like medical procedures?  If the species that does so is not an abomination to its creator, God, then why must the other be so?  Where is the sin?  

The Proclamation says that gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.  But this does not necessarily rule out the possibility that that gender is not eternally fixed and unchangeable throughout that whole timeline for any who don’t wish it to be, nor that the eternal categories of male and female are not hard boundaries that cannot be crossed or blurred in any way, with no gradation or fluidity between them.  It does not rule out the possibility of being a mannish, masculine “daughter” or a feminine “son,” though we must remember that what is deemed masculine and feminine has been different and changed depending on cultures, societies, and time.  It does not rule out the possibility of a son becoming a daughter or vice versa.  It doesn’t not rule out the possibility of being some mix of the two in some way, whether in behavior and personality characteristics or even physical appearance. And even if it did, I repeat the question, where is the sin in some few people changing their sex and gender identity because they desire it?  What harm does it do to others or the individual themselves to make it immoral and thus a sin?  There is nothing in the 10 Commandments or other scriptural teachings of Jesus and his scriptural Prophets that make it a sin. It is a sin to murder because you are taking the agency, life, and physical property away from another without their consent.  It is a sin to steal for the same reasons as murder is a sin. Sins scripturally have to do with harming others against their will, thus destroying their agency, like Lucifer, AKA Satan attempted to do in the pre-mortal life.  It is not a sin for one to be born intersex, nor homosexual or bisexual.  It’s doubtful it is even a sin for such to act on those natural desires they have, having been born that way.  I do not believe relationships, sexual or not, between consenting homosexual or bisexual partners is a sin.  I strongly believe the LDS Church leaders are blatantly wrong on that matter, as on the matter that transitioning, socially or medically is a sin. I believe in time they will have to eat their words and walk back their rhetoric and statements, as they have on numerous occasions regarding other principles of men they have tried to pass off as “doctrine” & “revelation,” i.e. the word and will of God.  I could be wrong, I’ll freely admit, but I don’t think so. If transitioning is a sin and is such an abomination before God, how and why? Who does it harm? Whose agency and who else’s property and/or life does it violate or take from them against their will? Where is the sin? It is not a sin to change one’s appearance in other ways, even surgically.  So why is it a sin for one to alter their hormones and bodily appearance via hormone replacement therapy or genital replacement surgeries?  Some may say that the sin lies in these procedures making the individual sterile, unable to bear children.  But this is not a sin.  It is not a sin to choose to remain celibate all one’s life, because that is what one feels is best for them or because they just couldn’t find a partner.  It is not a sin for a married couple to decide not to have children.  That is up to the married couple alone to decide based upon their life’s circumstances.  Jesus himself taught in the Bible that marriage is not for everyone, and that some remain celibate for various reasons, including because some are eunuchs, made so natural by birth, some made so by other human beings, and some made so by their own hand for the the Lord’s sake.  And he condemned them not, meaning there was no sin in such.  So why would it be a sin for a Trans person to transition medically and become sterile as a result when being sterile otherwise or choosing not to have children is not inherently a sin for non-Trans people?  I ask again: where is the sin?  Perhaps there is no sin, and people only believe there is because this precept of men, this principle or philosophy of the flesh is what generations of fallible human beings have passed down and taught their own children (the sins of the fathers?)?  Could that be not only a possibility, but a probability?         

Many Christian critics will say that because God made all creatures in the beginning male and female, so as to be able to multiply and replenish the earth in their own capacities from the beginning, that this is the only way it must be and that any other way is evil, abomination, degenerate, and sinful.  Adam and Eve and all of the first creations were required to procreate via male and female sex, this is true.  That is the way God got the earthly family of creatures started.  But that is not how it has continued since that time, nor does it mean it must continue that way alone.  Since that time, evolution and developments in human medical science have made procreation possible in other ways, and continued learning and development in science will likely make it possible in even further ways in the future.  There are more ways now for two humans to procreate than just penetrative sex between a man and a woman.  Artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization are two ways of achieving procreation, whether through surrogacy or between a husband and wife.  Yet such methods of procreation, differing as they do from “the first way” established by God, are not sinful or some kind of evil aberration.  They are perfectly acceptable medical developments meant for people who for one reason or another are sterile or otherwise struggle to procreate by means of male-female sexual penetration & ejaculation.  As discussed already, many other animal species do not fit the typical “male-female” form of procreation, as “established by God” in the beginning by the first animal ancestors.  Clownfish, Parrotfish, and amphibians have the capability of changing biological sex and therefore gender (how they behave in their “society,” so to speak), under certain circumstances.  Male seahorses are the ones who carry the young to birth. All of these instances are different in some way from the typical interpretation of the Biblical record of all thing beings fixedly created male and female for procreation purposes. God does not wipe these creatures from the earth for being different and thus such an “abomination” to his “established way” of procreation. He doesn’t wipe human beings who use birth control, artificial insemination, or in vitro fertilization off the face of the earth for differing from his original “established way” of multiplying and replenishing the earth.  These means are not considered sinful today by most in society nor indeed by the LDS Church. In other words, it’s entirely possible that the male-female sexual intercourse means of multiplying and replenishing the earth introduced by God at the beginning was simply ONE method among many he could have chosen, or was simply the way to get things started before other ways could be discovered and take over in addition to the continuance of the first “established way.”  That God got procreation started that one way doe NOT mean by logical necessity that any other way is evil or sinful.  As human medical science, knowledge, and procedure develops, like that of natural genetic evolution for some species of animals, it could very well become possible in the near further that artificial wombs will be another means of giving birth, whether in an artificial womb outside of a human body or transplanted inside.  And since it is already possible for human beings to change their other sexual characteristics via hormone treatments, what makes it impossible, let alone sinful, for someone born with XY chromosomes from receiving an artificial womb transplant along with hormones, if they so desire to be a woman, a wife, and a mother?  Or a person born with XX chromosomes receiving sperm & testicle implants becoming a man, a husband, and a father?  The only thing that makes it impossible right now is our lack of knowledge in how to achieve such possibilities with our current understanding of medical science and surgical techniques.  It’s already possible to take what is already existing in people born XY and XX in their genitals and sculpt them into the genitalia of the opposite sex, i.e. taking a functioning penis and turning it into a functioning vagina or vise-versa capable of urination and even sexual stimulation. But medical knowledge and technique is changing, and fast.  Already they have successfully grown a sheep fetus in an artificial womb.  The medical tech and knowledge is coming; it’s just a matter of time.  But again, where is the sin?  Where is the sin of a man wishing to become a woman, a woman a man, or an individual some mix of the two, whether socially or medically?  Who does it harm?  Whose agency and property/life does it strip away or otherwise violate?  If it wouldn’t be considered a sin for an XX Cis-woman to receive an artificial womb implant, why would it be for an XY Trans woman to recieve one so as to be able to become a mother? Where is the sin? If it is not sinful for people to get plastic surgery so as to fix something they deem distressing with their current body, such as getting a nose job, reducing the prominence of one’s ears, or fixing an injury or birth defent of some kind, why is it sinful for an XY Trans women or XX Trans man to get sexual reconstruction surgeries or alter their secondary sexual characteristics via hormone replacement therapy in order to reduce their gender dysphoria and the distress it causes them in their lives? Where is the sin?  

Many critics have taken to labeling Gender Dysphoria and being Transgender as a “severe mental illness,” citing depression and suicide statistics as evidence that it’s just a sad mental disease they suffer from.  Are Clownfish, Parrotfish, amphibians, and other sex/gender changing species “severely mentally ill” as well?  Animals are certainly capable of feeling depressed and having mental illness.  Dogs are a great example of animals feeling depressed, for a variety of reasons, and they exhibit that depression remarkably similar to how humans exhibit it, with lack of enjoyment of usual activities, withdrawing and being by themselves, refusing or lack of interest in eating/exercising, etc.  If dogs can experience depression, why not fish or amphibians?  And yet, no one in their right mind would call Clownfish, Parrotfish, or amphibians “severely mentally ill” because they change their sex and gender.  Yet they insist on doing so for human beings who seek to change their sex and gender.  Why?  If it’s not mental illness for one species, it’s not for another species.  These critics who believe the “severe mental illness” nonsense concerning Trans people put the cart before the horse when they try to use depression or suicide rates as evidence that being Trans is a mental illness.  What they can’t see is that these issues, being Trans, having depression, and having suicidal ideation, while they can all influence each other, are, in the end, separate, independent things.  A Trans person gets depressed or experiences an increase in their depression because they lack support at home and in their personal life from those who should be loving them as they are or experience bullying or some other form of social pressure or abuse to conform to societal views on sex and gender or rejection for not doing so.  Their depression is not caused by being Trans, per se.  Rather, it’s caused by 1.) how people treat them for being Trans, and 2.) not being on the outside what they feel or desire on the inside and not being able to do anything about that either from lack of money or support in other ways to make their outside match their inside as much as possible.  And if this depression caused by mistreatment, bullying, or inability to transition in any meaningful degree, increases and goes untreated in some way, it can lead to suicidal ideation.  But again, this is a result of mistreatment or lack of ability to transition and thus alleviate the distress they feel from gender dysphoria.  It is not an inherent result of their being already mentally ill simply by being Transgender.  Again, it’s entirely possible that Trans people’s brains are formed differently at some process of the development of the fetus and human baby, just as Clownfish males who transition to females first experience a change in their brains.  But because gender dysphoria might be an issue in the brain or development of the brain does not in and of itself make it a “mental illness.”  It could simply be a part of our personality and who we are as a human individual.  It could be a genetic mutation, perhaps.  Or it could simply be the result of something else that occurs in fetal and baby development.  We can’t really say at this point.  But just as being introverted or extroverted, anxious or fearless, impulsive or very methodical in one’s thought process are not mental illnesses, but simply a part of what makes us unique and individual, the same goes for being Transgender and experiencing gender Dysphoria.  It’s no more a “mental illness” than being left handed instead of right handed or being introverted instead of extroverted is. Depression is not gender dysphoria. Depression does not cause gender dysphoria. They are two, separate things/experiences. Gender dysphoria, especially untreated, can lead to the start of and/or increase in depression, but being Trans and experiencing gender dysphoria in and of itself is NOT a “mental illness,” just as feeling depressed is not in and of itself a “mental illness.” Everyone feels depressed at times. Some struggle with it more than others. But the existence of depression and anxiety and distress cuased by gender dysphoria does not logically necessitate that gender dysphoria is therefore itself also a “mental illness.” To claim such is to put the cart before the horse. There is no evidence people who are Transgender and experience gender dysphoria are mentally ill simply by looking at their experiencing gender dysphoria in isolation.

 
It’s a lazy and extremely offensive way to try to other, dehumanize, and otherwise stigmatize innocent people who happen to deviate from how most other people are, i.e. the so-called “norm."  Labeling something as “mental illness” in order to stigmatize and turn people against those who are different from the majority is a tactic that’s been used for a long time. Gay people used to be considered “mentally ill,” and anyone who did not know or stick to their “appropriate” place in an arbitrary, unnaturally unequal society could be labeled “mentally ill” and imprisoned in insane asylums, simply for being different or not putting up with the abuse by those in power over them. If humanity couldn’t explain it or understand it, labeling it “mental illness” and throwing it away in a prison cell called an asylum was an easy tactic of putting it out of sight, out of mind so one needn’t have to do anything about it or put forth effort in trying to understand it.  All one need do is look at successful Trans people who have lived successful, mostly normal lives, having received support from loved ones and friends early on, to see that there is no mental illness other than depress that result from being mistreated by family and society.  People like Soul singer Jackie Shane, Gospel singer Wilmer Broadnax, Jazz Pianist Billy Tipton, and so many others from more modern day generations.  Take a supported and loved Trans kid or adult and an un supported Trans kid or adult and see who has a happier, more normal life free of or not overly encumbered by depression and other issues such as substance use in order to numb the pain caused by the depression that was caused by the lack of support or physical and psychological abuse of being rejected and bullied.  It will be the former, every single time.  Mental illness springs from being Trans due to mistreatment, abuse, and unsupportive loved ones and societies.  That is the only correlation between being Trans, gender dysphoria, and “mental illness.”      

If God’s children, only one out of a vast plethora of creations are an abomination if they alter their biological sexual characteristic and their bodies to match the “gender” they feel most comfortable with, and God loves all His Creations, why has He allowed, or indeed perhaps even created animals that change and move fluidly throughout the male/female binary spectrum?  Are those animals such as fish, amphibians, and other animals an “abomination” in His sight when they have developed through genetic evolutionary processes the ability to move fluidly thru said biological sex spectrum and alter their sexual characteristics?  They did so through biological evolution, having no concept nor abilities in scientific discovering given their limited brain capacities and intelligence compared to human beings.  But human beings aren’t fish, critics will say.  And they are right; they are not.  But that doesn’t mean humans can’t, don’t, haven’t, and shouldn’t discover their own natural processes of sex and gender change.  Human beings, with their greater intelligence levels and brain functioning have discovered science, and proceeded to make discoveries of science and in science, even medical science that allow human beings to alter their sexual characteristics through medical procedures and hormone alterations. Cannot this be humanity’s quicker, higher intelligence version of evolution?  Perhaps humanity was formed and changed through evolution as other animals were and still today, but given humanity’s higher level of intelligence, as Children of God, perhaps scientific discovery and methodology is the human version of evolutionary change?  Humans are, at base, animals like all the rest of the animal kingdom.  What sets us apart is our intelligence levels and ability to use our larger brains in a capacity that no other animals can.  If God does not hold his other animal creations that have developed abilities of sex and gender change in condemnation, why would He hold humanity in with their abilities of sex and gender change through their own version of evolution in condemnation?  Why would he love the sex changing Clown Fish but hate or be angry at the sex changing Human that is his child?  Such does not make sense.  Is God angry at women who cannot or choose not, for whatever reason, to bear children in this life? Is God angry at those who choose not to start new families of their own, or those who create their own new families through means other than sexual relations with each other? No. A logically functioning brain couldn’t conclude otherwise.  So why would God hate or be angry or disappointed at those who choose to alter their sex as best as they can to be the gender they feel most at home with, and proceed to live a Christlike life?  God wants us to be happy, and He lets us choose what makes us happy.  Being EXACTLY like God in ALL ways, by getting married and starting a family is ONE way of obtaining happiness and fulfillment, but it is not the ONLY way.  Such is not for everyone.  And If God does not condemn us for not choosing that exact path, then why should we be condemning our human siblings for choosing a a different path, especially one that doesn’t harm other people?   

God’s commandments to his human children focus on how we treat our fellow human siblings in this life.  The two greatest commandments Christ gave were to love God and love your neighbor as you love yourself. These two commandments are intimately connected, so much so that you cannot do one and not the other, for to love God, you must be like Him, which means loving your neighbor as yourself. What matters first and foremost to God is being like him in attributes and behavior in how we treat our fellow human beings.  Being charitable, kind, generous, meek, mild, non-judgmental, patient, full of love and slow to anger, using persuasion instead of aggression & coercion, i.e. living like Christ and thus the Father in relation to our fellow human siblings, those Christlike and thus God like attributes are what God’s commandments focus on and thus those are the primary determiners of what “degree of glory” we end up in in the next life.  Changing one’s sex characteristic and societal gender identity has no effect on anyone except the person making those changes on themselves.  Thus, how can it be sin?  How can it be contrary to the “commandments” and an “abomination” when the alterer otherwise obeys all of Christ’s and thus the Father’s commandments and becomes as God in attribute and behavior in how one treats his/her fellows?   Where is the sin?          

Trans and Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual people may very well be in the Celestial Kingdom if they live a Christlike life.  Perhaps the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom is for those who marry a wife/husband and start a family and thus become like God in all ways, creating eternal families as he has.  But what of the other degrees or levels of the Celestial Kingdom?  Cannot they be inhabited by others who live a Christlike enough life to merit it, even if they be single, a different sex/gender than they one they were born as, or married to a member of the same sex/gender as they?  Can they not also participate in the creation process and be productive members of the eternal human family in ways other than the creation of children as mother or father? For all we know, Trans and Homosexual married couples who start families by means other than sexual intercourse may also inherit the highest degree of the Celestial glory. Just because God condones one form of family does not mean he must therefore condemn all other forms of healthy, Christlike families. Just because God likes waffles doesn’t by necessity mean he must hate pancakes. Where is the sin? I simply don’t see it. Could it be people believe such thinking is blasphemy, heretical, and/or sinful simply because a group of fallible, geriatric men who were not born in cultural vacuums declared it to be so contrary to the will of God, who’s light and knowledge they were not able to obtain because their hearts and minds were closed to it? Such would not be the first instance of this occurring in the LDS church’s history, nor in the history of God’s chosen people and their organized religion. After all, part of Christ’s earthly ministry was to set straight the will and light and knowledge of God for his children and eradicate the philosophies of the flesh passed down from generation ot generation by way of tradition and culture, or even “religious” teaching. Why should our modern age be any different? There has only ever been one perfect human being to dwell on this earth who was able to surpass cultural influence, and his name was Jesus Christ. Even prophets of old made mistakes contrary to the will of God. The racist African priesthood ban and false teachings of men on interracial marriage are just one example of this. And these false teachings of men, these misguided mistakes continued for centuries and only disappeared because enough people were willing to be open to the fact that maybe past generations and themselves had gotten it wrong, and that God’s will could then be made known to them because they humbled themselves and were open to accepting God’s word on the matter. Why cannot the same occur with the (as demonstrated) misguided notions that transitioning as a Trans person or getting married in a homosexual relationship is sinful also change when those who hold the keys of God’s sealing and unsealing power on earth humble their hearts and open them along with their minds to greater light and knowledge regarding these things?    

 

How is it that a perfect, loving parent deity, who wants us to be happy like he is, would condemn a person to live as the sex they were randomly born as in this life when they are not happy as that sex & feel they would be happier as the other sex?  Where is the sin in wishing to be the other sex?  Where is the sin in mixing the social representations in the genders? God is not an arbitrary tyrant. God does not simply bark orders and dictates cuz he can and holds all the power. God Himself follows and is bound b y the eternal laws of morality, justice, and mercy, and thus His commandments concerning what is sin and what is not must make logical sense. They must be based on those eternal laws of morality. It would make no logical sense for God to simply declare eating shellfish a sin just because, and for God to then start punishing & condemning people who ate shellfish are sinful, just because He made an arbitrary mandate and some people disobeyed it. God is not an arbitrary dictator who bases sin off of his whim and pleasure. Sin must have a basis or foundation in the eternal laws of morality, justice, and mercy, wherein others are harmed and damaged and are thus owed justice. This is entirely what Christ’s Atonement was about. It was about paying the demands of justice for every single human being who has ever lived on this earth and sinned and thus owes a debt to justice, having harmed another, suffering the demands of justice so that he, Christ, could dole out mercy to those who demonstrate they have earned and deserve it via true repentance. Sin (involving justice and mercy) is the harming of other people, creating a debt that is owed and must be paid (justice) for harming that other person, and mercy may be given by the victim owed the debt or by someone else who pays the debt for the debtor, the sinner. Sin is not simply whatever some random dictate someone says God made long ago. It must have a logical reason it is wrong, and not just because “God says so.” Thus, sin cannot be not simply wishing to be different from how you were born. Where is the sin in wishing & desiring to be the same follower of Christ that you are, but in a different body & in a different gender role, or coming as close to that role as you can in this life?  If sin is wishing to be different from how you were born, like one’s sex and gender, then anyone who fixes their teeth, takes medicine, or gets any kind of corrective or body altering surgery is sinning. Such is nonsense.

Who’s to say God won’t grant you your wish in the next life to be the opposite sex/gender of what you were randomly born in this life?  Why wouldn’t he?  Who’s to say he hasn’t already granted us some of that knowledge of how to make changing one’s sex a reality? Why must such scientific advancements be of Satan/the Devil? Why can’t they be of God, for the happiness and blessing of His children? Being happy is living like God & Christ, loving & serving others, helping them, living peacefully like them. This can be done as whatever sex/gender one pleases to be.  If Person A truly feels happier as a woman instead of as a man, or both, depending on his/her situation, and Person A lives as Christ does, loving God & his/her fellow man, where is the sin?  And why would God arbitrarily condemn Person A to be something that does not bring him/her joy just cuz HE, God wants it that way?  Wouldn’t that be denying Person A his/her/their agency if God forced them to be something they did not wish to be? That would make God an arbitrary tyrant, not a loving, just, and merciful parent deity.  If God is all powerful, can He not make it so that person is the sex/gender that they find happiness as?  All powerful would necessitate the possibility that he COULD, & his loving nature & desire for us to be happy would indicate that he WOULD make Person A’s desire reality, in this life or the next.   So, those who say being trans & transitioning is sinful and against nature or God’s intentions, or that trans people are just “severely mentally ill” are not seeing as God sees. They are seeing only one tree in a giant forest, missing the mark & being unChristlike in the process. The same goes for those who say being Homosexual or engaging in a homosexual relation is sinful. I fail to see where the sin is.   

The Proclamation continues: 

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshipped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize their divine destiny as heirs of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

Again, nothing in this section precludes the possibility of a change in one’s sex or gender or indicates such would be a sin.  We may have been “sons” and “daughters” in the premotral world, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a change in those genders in the premortal world if one wished, nor does it mean there can’t be a change in this world, nor in the world to come, if one wishes.  It merely states that family relationships are eternal and that the children of God have the potential, by coming to earth and gaining a body, of returning to the presence of God by choosing righteousness, living as Jesus Christ taught and enduring to the end, so we may return to the presence of God and dwell with him in the eternities with our families.  One may achieve those goals of becoming like Christ and the father in attributes and behavior towards others as a Cis-man, a Cis-woman, a Trans man, a Trans woman, or some mix of the sexes and genders, whether single or married. Our families could be our spouses and children born to us in this earthly life.  Or it could mean those we were born to, our parents, along with our siblings and other extended relatives.  There is nothing in this section that forbids or condemns the changing of sex and gender in that great plan of returning to the presence of God with our families, whatever our family may constitute, for eternity and becoming like God. Just because we may start life one way in the premortal existence and/or in this earthly existence as a male or a female, doesn’t mean that those identities are fixed and unalterable. Again, where is the sin in being Transgender and changing one sex and gender? How does altering one’s sex preclude one from becoming as Christ and the Father and returning to live with them with one’s family? Where is the necessity of staying as the sex and gender one was born as? Becoming a God is not dependent upon one’s sex and gender. To be a God is to be Godly, to behave as God does, not to be male or female. If one can still return to the presence of God unmarried and without children, being reunited for eternity with their earthly families consisting of their parents, siblings, and distant relatives, what does it matter if they do so as a different sex and gender?  Just as it doesn’t matter that they transition in their families now, it doesn’t matter that they transition in the hereafter, for just as families should love Trans children and families members as they are now, transitioned or no, they will continue to love them in the next life in the eternities as will God the Father and our elder brother, Christ. They are still the same person, same personality, same unique individual, still the same “child.”  Where is the sin?

The Proclamation continues:

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Again, this harkens back to the critics who say that because God started the world populating itself in all species with male and female via sexual intercourse, it must always be so and it is sinful if it is not.  But it is not sinful to procreate in ways different from sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman.  Artificial insemination of a man’s sperm into the womb of a woman, or in vitro fertilization are not considered sins, but miraculous technological developments that allow sterile and infertile couples be able to have children.  There’s sperm banks where women can go to get donated sperm if their husband is sterile. There’s surrogacy births as well. There’s also adoption, all of these a praiseworthy, wholesome means of multiplying and replenishing the earth and creating families. There’s no sin in either one of these means of multiplying and replenishing the earth.  And when further medical development makes it possible for a person born with XY chromosomes to give birth and be a mother, or a person born with XX chromosomes to donate implanted or their own generated sperm or deposit said sperm implants into a womb, artificial or not, what difference does it make what one’s chromosomes happen to be so long as the multiply and replenishing the earth and creation of families continues?  Additionally, while this commandment was given to Adam and Eve, it doesn’t hold for all of their descendants.  Not all human beings are made for marriage and the starting of families by having children in some form.  For some human beings, remaining celibate and/or childless is a perfectly OK thing for them to choose if they feel that is best for them, and there is no sin in them not having children or getting married.  There are many rooms in the Father’s mansion, or many mansions in the Father’s kingdom.  There is a place for all types of different righteously living people.  Married people with children will not be the only ones brought back into the presence of God to live with him in the eternities along with their families, whatever form those families take.  Thus, what forbids or precludes the altering of one’s gender if one wishes or mixing one’s gender if one can still return to the presence of God and be reunited with their families for eternity despite not having married and/or having children?  Jesus saidvmarriage is not for everyone.  Some remain celibate for very good reasons, and there is nothing wrong with that.  What forbids or precludes them a place in the Celestial Kingdom with God and their families they are sealed to?   If nothing forbids or precludes them from a Celestial existence with their families, they what forbids or precludes the same existence for someone who alters their sex and gender and either starts a family or remains celibate?  Nothing in this section forbids or precludes any of those things.  

Life is indeed precious and the creation of life, however it is done, should not be taken lightly, for bringing life and preserving it are sacred things and huge commitments that cannot and should not be abandoned once undertaken. But this does not preclude bringing life into this world and protecting it after altering one’s sex and gender if this becomes possible; it’s already possible for Trans men.  What remains to be made possible is for Trans women.  But this medical ability is likely not too far distant into the future.  And once it becomes a possibility, it will of course likely be condemned as evil, satanic, contrary to nature and God’s will and “established way,” harmful to society and the life brought forward, mental illness, and all other slanders and libels that can be thought of to paint it in the most horrible light possible.  But such was the case with birth control and so many other medical advancements when they first became a reality, lambasted as every evil cliche in the book by the conservative cultural luddites of the time.  But where is the sin?  Where is the harm to others’ agency?  It was once feared that homosexuals adopting children would turn the adopted children gay, as if “gayness” could be caught like a disease or STD.  The same moral panic is occurring with Transgender issues and the alleged “Trans Agenda” or “Transifying of the nation’s children.”  That is not how Homosexuality, Bisexuality, or being Transgender works.  It is not learned.  Those people truly are born that way, and throughout the history of the world and the human species, they have remained a minority, which means, by logical conclusion, that they will likely continue to remain a minority in human society. The idea that children can be taught or forced to be Gay, Bi, or Trans against their nature and their will is just not what is observable by reality. Social constructions regarding gender or gender expression may change, to be sure, and has and there is nothing wrong with that. Clothing and other outward expressions of “masculinity” and “femininity” do not need to be “genderized.” What is also possible is that children can be taught to be accepting of and loving (in a Platonic sense) toward their fellow human beings who do make up the minorities of those are who are Gay, Bi, and Trans.  Gay, Bi, and Trans people have ALWAYS existed in this world, and will always exist.  The notion that they will somehow sprinkle rainbow dust on everyone and magically turn everyone into them and significantly stifle the growth of the human species to the point of its eradication and the bringing of the fall of cultures and societies is utter ridiculousness.  The Roman Empire (indeed all empires) did not fall because of Gay or Trans people being accepted into society.  It fell because it was inherently aggressive and violent, utterly and unsalvageably corrupt, violently conquering and spreading out way too far and thin in territory to be able to maintain power, turning enough people against it with its tyrannical regimes and mistreatment of those not in power to cause rebellions against it.  Such is the way of all empires built on aggressive violence.  The USA’s empire is no different. The wicked destroy themselves or bring it upon themselves by their very wickedness and immorality in mistreating others to the point of the mistreated rising up against the aggressors/mistreaters.  What we are seeing now with the current moral panic against non-aggressing Trans people and gender non-comforming individuals is merely a repeat of the previous moral panics against others who didn’t conform to the majority of society. And just as the LDS Church and other authorities have had to walk back their past rhetoric and policies, “revelations,” ”doctrines,” and “God’s eternal truths” on their similar past moral panics to what they truly are, the precepts of fallible men who are not born in cultural vacuums, the same will, I strongly believe, occur with what is currently being passed off as “revelation,” “doctrine,” and “God’s unalterable decree” regarding Trans people.  The Proclamation on the Family has truth in it, to be certain, and it may indeed even be “revelation” and “God’s eternal word,” but it is being taken out of context or misinterpreted by many to mean something that it just does not say or shouldn’t logically be construed regarding the LGBT portion of the human family in an effort to condemn them as minions of Satan at the very worst, or intentional sinners in the very least, something which cannot be proven based upon the doctrines of Christ in the canonical scriptures and by reason/logic and the Spirit.  

Again, where is the sin in engaging in meaningful, love based Gay or Bi relationships, even to marriage, and adopting children?  Where is the sin in Trans people transitioning to the extent they desire?  How does it violate the agency of others?  How does it violate the greatest commandments of God to love God with all your heart and mind and love your neighbor as yourself, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you and not doing unto others as you would not have them do unto you?  How does it violate the 10 Commandments and he other teachers of Christ in the canonical scriptures and doctrines that come from them?  “Know this that every soul is free, to choose his life and what he’ll be.” This is a verse from one of the hymns in the LDS hymnal, titled “Know This that Every Soul is Free.” We are all blessed with the power sovereignty and self-determination over our lives and the paths we take in it. What prevents a Trans person who has transitioned or a Gay person in a relationship or marriage from becoming as Christ in attributes and behavior and thus preventing him/her/them from returning to Christ and the Father by becoming as they are? Absolutely nothing that I can see, other than their stubborn refusal to become as Christ and the Father in how they treat others. A prophet can say many things, as a prophet or as a regular, non-prophetic human being, and at the end of the day, prophets are still fallible human beings susceptible to making mistakes and falling for the precepts of men and temptations of Satan. They are not raised in cultural vacuums and thus the cultures/societies and times they were brought up in end up affecting and influencing how they view and understand the world and their role in it.  What makes a prophet’s words likely to be revelation and doctrine is if it matches what the canonical scriptures teach, with a heavy favorability toward the teachings of Christ himself in those canonical scriptures. Though, to be fair, the men and possibly women who wrote and compiled the scriptures were also fallible human beings, and thus they too may have erred in their writing or compiling of the scriptures. So, ultimately, what we have to rely upon in the end is our rationality from our own brains and emotions from out own hearts, or in other words, the Spirit and the ways it reveals thing to us, by emotion but also reason. The Spirit can confirm that something a prophet says is indeed of God and not just a precept of fallible man.  And the notions that transitioning Trans people are sinning by mere nature of their transitioning, or that there cannot and will not be changes in biological sex and gender in this life or the life to come cannot be proved or backed up in any way with canonical scripture and what the Savior taught himself, to prophets of old or during his earthly mission and visitations to the different branches of the House of Israel.  Nor can it be proved logically. Logic, my heart, and thus the Spirit tells me that there is no sin in such. Thus, such notions stink of the precepts of fallible, culture, fear, and age driven human beings.  Where is the sin?

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

Again, none of this is contradicted by a Trans woman or Trans man transitioning, or even a Homosexual couple/family raising children.  If LGBT people are driven away from following the commandments of God to live moral lives of non-aggression against others, they are driven away by those in authority who claim to speak for God yet who mistreat them with their harmful actions and condemning rhetoric. And such people will be held accountable to answer for being a catalyst in driving otherwise perfectly good people from God due to that mistreatment.  It is entirely possible for a Trans or Gay couple to adopt or have their own child in whatever way possible for them to do so and “rear them in love and righteousness,” providing for “their physical and spiritual needs,” and teaching them “to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God,” being “held accountable for the discharges of these obligations.”  And those that don’t will be held accountable, just as Cis and Heterosexual couples/parents/families will be.  Again, where is the contradiction with the Proclamation?  Where is the sin?  

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

The family IS ordained of God. But, again, that does not mean every person born on this earth is capable of, nor required to start a family.  Celibacy is NOT a sin.  Being childless is NOT a sin.  Such people are fully capable of living Christ-centered lives worthy off salvation and the the highest degrees of glory dwelling with God.  And yet, despite being celibate or childless, individuals who choose or have that forced upon them by life’s circumstances still remain a part of a family, whether it be their biological parents and siblings, their extended families of cousins, uncles, aunts, their friends, or the human family.  Marriage between a man and a woman can be essential to God’s eternal plan for the majority of people who are born Heterosexual and desire to start families while still allowing for others who are born or desire differently to exist in full harmony and in simultaneous righteousness as those who can, desire to, and do start families.  Nothing here precludes, forbids, or condemns Trans people or couples or Gay people or couples from transitioning and even starting loving, providing families of their own via adoption, sexual intercourse, artificial insemination or in vitro fertilization.  Trans men can just as easily and fulfillingly take on the role of a father in a family, just as Trans women can take on the role of a mother, especially thanks to the miracles of modern day technology and medical knowledge.  Use of baby formula and purchasing breast milk from other milk producing women, not sins in the case of Heterosexual, Cis-gender (non-Trans) couples unable to produce breast milk for whatever reason, cannot and should not logically be considered a sin for Trans women in a family relationship.  Much of what involves being a mother and a father is socially constructed and learned, and can be taught and learned by Trans women and Trans men.  If single Cis-gender Heterosexual or Homosexual parents can provide just as well for children as families consisting of a Heterosexual, Cis-gender mother and a father, and not be considered sinful,, then Trans men can provide just as well for their families and Trans women can nurture their children just as easily and as well and not be sinful.  Cis-gender, Heterosexual men who are stay at home dads who nurture the children while their wife works and brings in the income to the family is not sinful. Men are just as capable at nurturing children as women and women are just capable of providing for their families as men.  So why is a Trans family considered so evil and sinful?  So again I ask, where is the sin?  This part of the Proclamation smacks of culturalism and generationalism more than anything else, more than being “divine revelation” or “the unalterably decree of God.”  God is no respecter of persons, so we should not be either. The LDS Church & its members and the rest of Christendom, indeed the rest of humanity need to stop trying to pass culture off as “revelation” and “doctrine” in order to try to cram everyone into boxes they may not fit in due to life circumstance or their desire not to fit in them.  John 14:2: “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”  The “individual adaption” clause should suffice enough to show that Trans people transitioning and even forming families is not sinful and certainly not contrary to the Proclamation of the Family.  So, again, I ask: where is the sin?

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

Abusers of spouse and children, whether they be adopted, the result of sexual intercourse between husband and wife, or the result of some other means of child birthing, commit immoral acts in their abuse, violating the rights of the abused by committing aggression against them, regardless of whether who, what, and where they were born.  Trans parents who abuse their spouses and children are just as guilty of such immorality and will be held just as accountable for that abuse as Cis-parents or Gay parents.  Abuse is abuse, no matter who commits it.  And abuse is a very specific term that has a very specific definition.  Abuse is when one commits aggression against another, either by committing aggressive violence against them, coercing them to do or be recipient of things against their will, or purposefully or negligently (without trying one’s hardest) failing to provide for the lives they bring in to this world.  In this last aspect of abuse, it is abuse specifically when the providing parents CAN but choose not to provide for their children, spending the money on themselves instead, wasting it away on unnecessary things (such as, say, gambling or buying overly expensive, unneeded items, etc.), refusing to work to provide when one can, all to the detriment of the children and other family members who cannot provide for themselves, suffering lack of food, clothing, shelter, education, fun, security, etc.  A disabled parent who has trouble finding a job due to unjust government regulations keeping the market artificially closed shut to him entering to compete and thus falls on indigent times and struggles to feed the family as a result of is not abuse, at least not at the hands of the disabled parent.  The abuse in this situation would come from those in government passing & enforcing aggression based protectionist legislation and regulations that artificially keep people like him out of the market and unable to compete so as to provide for his/her/their family.  As stated already, Trans couples and/or parents are as fully capable of providing a loving family environment for children focused on Christ-like living as Cis-couples/parents and Homosexual couples/parents.  Whether they do or not is another matter altogether.  But they are fully capable of it. And their being Trans, Homosexual, or Cis and Heterosexual has no bearing on their ability to fulfill those roles of father and mother, aside from the unjust limitations and shackles a condemning, fearful, and/or hate based society and governments put on them.

The disintegration of the family WILL have dire results and consequences for individuals, communities, and societies called “nations,” leading to a variety of negative consequences for individuals and groups of individuals called communities and societies. But, what causes that disintegration is what needs to be the focus, and a few minority Trans people, out of a majority of billions of Cis Heteronormative human beings, that transition and perhaps even form families is NOT one of those things that leads to the societal wide disintegration of the family in and of itself.  Trans and Gay people are rare, and have been for the entire existence of humanity.  The vast majority of humanity for as long as it has existed has remained Cis-gender and Heterosexual. The idea that a few transitioning Trans people and Homosexual people forming families, let alone just existing will turn everyone else Trans or Gay or Bi, or otherwise throw off humanity from it’s usual path of multiplying and replenishing the species and destroying the family and its role in society is so far fetched that it’s laughable.  If it hasn’t happened yet in the entirety of humanity’s existence on this earth, it isn’t going to happen.  There are far more sinister, actually evil and demonic things out there that can be and indeed often are threats to the family and its importance in society than a minority of Trans and Gay people.  Take for example one of THE biggest threats to the family, the industrial war machine that fuels all empires, including the United States empire that we all live in today. It takes young men and sometimes women from their families, chews them up, often murders them, murdering others all over the world in the desire for more territory, more resources, or more control over the globe, taking them from their families, too, all so a few politicians, bureaucrats, judges, and CEOs and other officers of war weapons making corporations can have nice things, seats of power, and cushy lives.  And IF those young men & women lured into or actually seized and enslaved into that industrial war machine miraculously come out alive and back to their families, they are never the same mentally, emotionally, and physically.  THAT & the inherently aggressive governments of the world that keep it going is likely THE biggest threat to the family and its importance in society that any other thing.  Not Trans or Gay people. 

And yet where are the voices coming out against that? They are few in number, I can assure, even in the alleged hallowed halls of the LDS Church, which preaches obedience to such devilish monstrosities as human governments, contrary to God’s own words in the scriptures. You cannot “believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men” while also believing that human governments, which are built upon and indeed require the violation of the 10 Commandments & all those attributes, thus destroying the agency on the individual in process, are ordained of God and that we must be “subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates…obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”  The latter are built upon a system that violates the former, and requires all “subject” to them to violate the former in supporting and obeying them.  You cannot be honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and do any amount of good to to humanity while being apart of or supporting in any way the very offices and officers of aggressive human government that require violations of the those former attributes on a daily basis in order for them to exist.  Such monstrosities as aggressive and coercive human government cannot be of God when God is virtuous, honest, patient, long suffering, persuasive (as opposed to aggressive), true, chaste.  No, a minority of Trans and Gay people are not any threat to the family and its role in society.     

Additionally, Trans people are fully capable of providing loving, nurturing, safe and accepting, Christlike environments for families to be raised in, just as single Cis-parent based families and adoptive Cis-parents can be. That is, unless said families, Trans or otherwise, are driven away from the teachings of Christ by condemning rhetoric that THEY are the ones causing the disintegration of the family merely by being Trans, Homosexual, or Bisexual.  Push these people away from the LDS Church and the teachings of Christ by making them feel unwelcome, dirty, tainted, sinful, and evil, and you have a self-fulfilling prophecy about the “disintegration of the family” by Trans, Gay, and Bi people, because YOU have pushed them away from living a Christ-like life in their individual and family lives by falsely and unjustly condemning them as the problem.  This is abuse if anything ever was, spewing the fear and/or hate based precepts of men that Trans, Gay, and Bi people, all minorities in human societies, will bring about the downfall of society by merely existing.  What brings about the downfall of societies is when a majority of individuals in those societies aggress against others and become normalized in that aggression, to the point of them becoming ripe in their iniquity where their aggressive violence or treatment eventually reaches back to themselves in some fashion. The wicked destroy themselves, sometimes at their own hands in civil wars or sometimes at the hands of other wicked peoples, while sometimes at the hands of their innocent victims finally fighting back with the help and strength of God to deliver them.

The law of Chastity: 

How does a Trans person transitioning or even forming a family with a loved one violate the law of chastity?  The issue with chastity is inseparable with the issues of A.) marriage, and B.) bringing life into this world via procreation in all its forms.  In the Bible, Jesus condemns adultery and married men lusting after women.  Many may try to separate the “lusting after women from adultery” and simply say finding a woman or a man sexually attractive and arousing in and of itself is sin and adultery, forgetting that adultery comes only when marriage is involved, and thus would be wrong to do so.  To look upon a man or a woman and find them sexually attractive, even to imagining one having consensual sex with him or her has nothing to do with this verse taken from the Sermon on the Mount as found in the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  How can two single people commit adultery?  They can’t.  Adultery only occurs when one or both couples in a marriage lust after and even have sexual relations with another person who is not their spouse.  Thus, a single individual looking at another single individual and finding them attractive, even to the point of imagining themselves having consensual sexual relations with that person cannot by definition be adultery.  Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount delivered to the Jews and the Nephites/Lamanites and whomever else he visited and taught the sermon to concerns married individuals lusting after others, and thus adultery.  If one is having sexual intercourse with someone they have no intention of marrying and being partners for life with that other person, running the risk of getting them pregnant, thus bringing life into this world, and with no intention of supporting that life that is brought into the world as a result of their sexual intercourse, therein lies the sin.  But a Trans person transitioning and forming a family, or two Gay people marrying, and even married Trans or Gay people having loving sexual relations with each other has nothing to do with bringing life into this world and not supporting it after having done so, nor does it have anything to do with adultery. Neither does having sexual relations with oneself, i.e. masturbation. And for that matter, neither does two unmarried Homosexual or Trans people having consensual sexual relations. Therefore, I ask again: where is the sin? God gave everyone the gift of sexual arousal for the purpose of multiplying and replenishing the earth, yes, but also for personal pleasure and expressions of love.  But as we have seen, not everyone is capable multiplying & replenishing the earth, nor are they required to if they do not wish to do so, for whatever personal reason they may have.  There is no sin in such. Why would God give everyone the gift of sexual arousal and forbid anyone from ever experiencing its pleasurable feelings unless they are married and purposefully trying to bring children into the world?  The LDS church has already said that sexual intercourse between a married man and woman is not solely for the purpose of procreation.  The LDS Church has stated that it is also for the purpose of strengthening the bonds of love between married couples.  Where is the sin in single individuals, Trans or Cis, Gay or Straight, also experiencing the pleasures of sexual arousal & orgasm, either with themselves or with a partner they have committed themselves to via ceremonial or common law marriage, or even just as a relationship, so long as they do so in a manner that is consensual between married couples and does not lead to the possibility of the creation of life they are not committed to supporting?  The law of chastity is inseparably connected with the procreational aspects of sexual intercourse, and as such, the sin lies in two people who have no commitment to each other nor the possible life they may create having sexual intercourse.  And herein lies the sin, i.e. the immorality in adultery.  When two individuals marry (and get sealed), they make promises to be faithful to each other and each other alone, promising to provide for, support, and offer the best chances in life to the lives they decide to bring in to this world, if they decide that having children is the right thing to do for them. The same could apply to Trans & Gay married couples, including those who adopt children. When one or both people in that marriage go behind the back of the other and start having relations, including & especially sexual intercourse with other people, they are not only violating the promises they made to each other, but they are also making it possible that they will bring life into this world (if cisgender) they have made no commitment to to support, which is unjust to the mother and the child being brought into this world. Therein lies the sin in adultery and thus the violation of the law of chastity, which concerns married individuals and/or the bringing of life into this world.  So, again, the law of chastity, as described by the LDS Church, i.e. no sexual activity of any kind prior to marriage between one male and one female, is problematic in that it is not logical to say masturbation in and of itself or even consensual sexual relations between Trans or Gay couples, married or not, who love each other, is in and of itself sinful.  But, also, the law of Chastity really has nothing to do with Trans people who transition and even form families inasmuch as there is no adultery involved and no bringing in of children into this world that will not be supported by the parents. Masturbation harms no one. Consensual sexual relations between married or unmarried Trans or Homosexual individuals harms no one inasmuch as procreation is not an issue. So, again, where is the sin? Is it simply because a group of old men in charge of a powerful and wealthy church said so? That’s not reason enough for it to be considered true sin in God’s eyes, as per what God has indicated sin consists of.  It is my belief that God is far more concerned in his commandments to us, his children, with how we treat each other as fellow human siblings and children of His and our own individual relationship with Him than he is with anything else.  For those are the two greatest commandments as described by Christ himself in the New Testament, to love God with all your might, mind, and spirit, and to love others as you love yourself and do/don’t do unto them what you would have them do or not do to you.  On those two great commandments hang all the laws and the prophets & thus all the commandments of God himself to us, his children.  What makes a sin a sin is the aggressing against and harming of our fellow human beings and thus not loving them as ourselves nor loving God with all our might, mind, and spirit.  For the two great commandments are linked and intimately tied together.  Fulfill the one and you must automatically fulfill the other.  Violate the one and you must necessarily violate the other in the process, for God himself gives use our freedom and respects our sovereignty and autonomy, and thus does unto us as He would have us do unto him.  To love God with all your heart, mind, and spirit, is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  And herein is what makes sin, sin: the violation of the rights, property, and thus agency, freedom, and individual sovereignty of our fellow human beings, i.e. the committing of aggression against them and thus injustice.   

I believe God is much more concerned with how we treat others and ourselves much more so than what building we worship in and what clothes we wear, prayers we say, hymns we sing, books we read, and rituals we perform therein.  For the purpose of human existence is to become as God, and to become as God is to form relationships with our fellow human beings based on persuasion, charity, love, and long suffering, i.e. voluntarism.  And looking at the state of the world and the tyrannical governments and behaviors, the murders, the thievery, the imprisonments, and the ultimate enslavement of innocent people all over the world by those in those governments, a large chunk of humanity is clearly failing miserably to become like God by living lives of aggression and unjust coercion against their fellow human beings.  Whether one drinks certain drinks or eats certain foods, says certain words, does certain activities, inasmuch as there is no one else aggressed upon and thus harmed, I truly don’t believe God gives a fig about what one does or says so long they love Him with all their heart and thus treat others kindly and lovingly.  Everything else is merely the philosophies of fallible men.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        
Further expounding upon these Sermon on the Mount verses concerning adultery, much noise has been made by the alleged words of Christ in the Bible concerning divorce, that all divorced people remarrying are committing adultery. How so? If widows or widowers who remarry and have sexual relations with each other in love are not committing adultery, how are two individuals who have discovered after years of trying to make their relationship work that they are just not meant to be together, finding no happiness or fulfillment in their union, how are they committing adultery in remarrying?  The LDS Church says that “we believe the Bible to be the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly.”  This to me seems to be a translation or compilation issue regarding the Sermon on the Mount, or a misinterpretation issue. It’s entirely possible that Christ never said these words about divorce and adultery, or if he did, it was written down incompletely or translated incorrectly.  It’s also entirely possible that if Christ did indeed say those words, that he was referring to people who divorce for unjustified reasons, for example those who divorce simply because they want to have sexual relations with someone else and that those words don’t apply to those who divorce for justified reasons such as abuse. I cannot believe for a second that Christ, as perfectly just, merciful, and loving as he is supposed to be, would condemn a spouse to a marriage with an abusive (physical, mental, or emotional) partner and say that the victim in such an abusive marriage is guilty of adultery if they divorce the abusive partner and marry again with another individual and form a new family with them.  Such makes no logical sense. So, why would he condemn a transitioned Trans person, even one (or anyone) who practices safe self sexual gratification by way of masturbation? It makes no logical sense. The sins of masturbation lie in what it can lead some people to do, or rather, the sin lies in what people do to others against their will in order to sexually gratify themselves, such as rape and any other form of nonconsensual sex. A person sexually gratifying themselves harms no one, violates no one’s agency, and thus where is the sin?  But a person harming others and violating their agency in order to sexually gratify themselves, therein lies the sin.  And therein is the law of chastity as it relates to self sexual gratification.  Chastity does not mean never experiencing sexual gratification.  If so, anyone that has ever had a so-called “wet dream” or masturbated would be guilty of violating the law of chastity.  And as I’ve explained above, I find that extremely difficult to belief and find that such cannot logically be the case, for a variety of reasons.  Chastity means having sexual gratification in ways that do not violate the agency and rights of another human being, in ways that do not bring about life into this world where there is no commitment to support it and its bearer, the mother, and in ways that do not violate the promises of faithfulness between married couples. I simply find it extremely illogical and very difficult to believe that God would command that the law of chastity means celibate or even married Trans or Homosexual people can never experience the pleasures and emotional and mental releases of sexual gratification in appropriate, non-aggressive and non-life conceiving ways, such as with self sexual gratification, i.e. masturbation, or married Trans or Gay individuals having consensual sexual relations with their marriage partners.  I don’t consider these to be violations of the “law of chastity,” as it is explained in the scriptures by Christ himself.  Now, I fully admit that I could be wrong on these matters concerning the law of chastity, but I leave it up to those disagree with my logical explanations concerning my beliefs regarding the law of chastity to explain with evidence and reason how I am wrong.                                    

So again, in closing, I ask, how do transitioning Trans people contradict or violate in any way the principles taught in the scriptures and the Proclamation on the Family?  I’ve explained in great detail how they do not and how the Proclamation instead is being interpreted so as to be weaponized against Trans and Gay people to condemn them and push them away from Christ and his “restored church.” Even if it is not intentional, that is what is happening.  And what is Godly about that?  So I again repeat my question: where is the sin in being a transitioned (socially or medically) Trans person or a Gay person involved in a loving marriage with someone they are attracted to?  The Proclamation most definitely has truth in it, and it may indeed be a “revelation.”  However, like the Bible and all scripture written and compiled by fallible human beings, it is subject to misinterpretation and it must be interpreted by way of the Spirit, which can include logical reasoning.  As evidenced above, Trans people transitioning and, along with Gay people, even forming loving, Christ centered families that comply with the principles of a Christ centered family as laid out in the Proclamation concerning providing for children and treating family members with love and respect, do not violate or contradict the Proclamation.  Thus, where is the sin?                     

In conclusion, there is much good and much truth in the Proclamation on the family. It could very be what many consider it to be, i.e. a revelation and “doctrine,” God’s word to all humanity regarding our potential as human beings and His literal children. As it states, the family is an eternal thing and family ties will always be important. But how the Proclamation has been interpreted regarding acting on one’s homosexuality and transgenderism being sinful and how it has been used to demonize or push aside those who do not fit exactly into the neat little cultural box of the the nuclear family and “man”,  “woman,” “mother,” and “father” has been problematic.  There are other logical interpretations of it, as I have offered here in this article, and one of those interpretations is that while “male” and “female” and sex and gender may be eternal concepts, eternal does not always mean fixed, concrete, and unchanging. There may actually be fluidity in sex and gender, as has been demonstrated in humanity and in other animal species, fluidity between those borders of “male” and “female,” and there may actually be nothing wrong or sinful with that fluidity at all.  One can still become like God, enough to be able to dwell with Him in the eternities, regardless of whether one’s sex and gender remains the same as one’s chromosomes happened to determine for him/her in development in the womb and at birth.  In short, where is the sin in being Trans and transitioning, changing ones sex and/or gender? I fail to see it.  I fail to see it in the Proclamation and I fail to see it logically/doctrinally via scripture and via the Holy Spirit.  The Proclamation does not condemn Trans people transitioning, if looked at logically and from the perspective of biological reality. What condemns Trans people transitioning is fallible people’s cultural/social, and generational outlooks on Trans or Homosexual people and their weaponizing the Proclamation against them by looking at it & its wording from an unjustly and misguided narrow interpretation/perspective.  I do not believe the current LDS Church policy labeling transitioners as living in sin and unjustly discriminating against them and painting them out to be dangerous, harmful deviants and abusers to be just nor morally right.  Nor do I believe trying to use the Proclamation to back up such a policy or using it to try to paint Trans and Homosexual people who live according to their sexuality and gender reality as sinful to to be just and logical, let alone morally right, either.  Hopefully this article provides people another and better way to look at Trans and Homosexual people in relation to the LDS Church, revelation, doctrine, and the Proclamation.  Hopefully it gets them really thinking logically and asking themselves, “where is the sin in Trans people transitioning?”, pondering this question in their hearts and minds and praying for spiritual guidance on it. Hopefully they’ll be able to see the Proclamation in relation to Trans people in this new and better light I have attempted to make known to the reader.  Perhaps I am wrong.  I fully admit that possibility.  But, I don’t think I am, not based on all the evidence and logical reasoning I’ve provided in an attempt to show that perhaps Trans people transitioning isn’t the sin it’s been painted as, let alone a sin at all.  It’s something to think about and discuss.                                                                        


Footnotes:

1.)  Matthew 19:3-11,

2.) D&C 131:1-4, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/131?lang=eng 

3.)  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/04/concern-for-the-one?lang=eng 

4.) https://avidaquarist.com/can-clownfish-change-gender/ 

5.) https://oceanbites.org/sex-change-101-it-starts-in-the-brain/ 

6.)

a.) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35461.pdf,

b.) https://news.scubatravel.co.uk/male-to-female-sex-change-clown-fish-brain.html

7.)

a.) https://www.thetech.org/ask-a-geneticist/articles/2004/ask28/,

b.)https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35461#:~:text=The%20present%20study%20provides%20strong,gonadal%20restructuring%20in%20protandrous%20hermaphrodites.,

c.) https://australian.museum/learn/teachers/learning/sleek-geeks-videos/sex-change-in-clownfish/,

d.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8491468/ 

8.) https://nesplandscapes.edu.au/2021/05/17/new-research-explains-why-barramundi-switch-sex/ 

9.) Moses 3  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/pgp/moses/3?lang=eng

10.) D&C 121: 33-46, https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/121?lang=eng