The Taming of the Modern Mormon Man (Full Post)

Tweet

by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is the full installment of this week's multi-part post. Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 here, here, here and here.

I first stumbled across the MMM website only recently. As an inherently visual creature, I was immediately struck by the graphic of the man holding the baby bottle. I saw someone who—although tired of trying to calm his fussy little one—was nevertheless glad for the opportunity to escape the mundane and collect his thoughts while allowing his child the freedom to wander semi-supervised in the church foyer. I reflected on the internal dialog I’d entertained many times in similar settings. I saw myself.

To me the image represented the resignation I’d felt when my life was on autopilot. I had the nice home, the decent marriage, and the steady job—albeit the kind that slowly robs a man of his pride, confidence, and independence. It was when life couldn’t have been any better that I sometimes wondered if it could get any worse.

I had been tamed.¹

In retrospect it had happened so gradually I hadn’t even been aware it had happened at all. Childhood had set the stage perfectly. My parents had a high conflict relationship, and their arguments frequently centered on church activity and attendance. My father was LDS but not active, and I grew up swayed to my mother’s view that his “unrighteousness” was the cause of all the problems at home. Hence I determined at an early age to remain active in the Church and to avoid conflict at all costs. Anger was not an option.

My perspective on anger was heavily reinforced through years of church activity. I learned to equate anger with sin. Anger was associated with all sorts of evil: unrighteous dominion, the spirit of contention, and a host of other ills imputed to the “natural man.” Furthermore, I understood that the “natural man is an enemy to God,” and that his base impulses had to be put off, overcome, and subjugated to the governance of the spirit. Consider for example this counsel given during the priesthood session of the October 2009 General Conference:

“I ask, is it possible to feel the Spirit of our Heavenly Father when we are angry? I know of no instance where such would be the case.

***

To be angry is to yield to the influence of Satan. No one can make us angry. It is our choice. If we desire to have a proper spirit with us at all times, we must choose to refrain from becoming angry. I testify that such is possible.”

I wish to tread lightly here. In context, this speaker was talking about the many instances where anger gives rise to abuse, oppression, and other unrighteousness. Unfortunately we know that such is often the case, even among the men of the Church to whom this leader was speaking. This vast problem needs to be identified and corrected, and this leader was forthrightly doing so.

But I always struggle when anger is equated with sin, because I can’t reconcile that view with the scriptures. I can’t imagine Jesus in a pleasant mood when He took a whip and drove the moneychangers from the temple. He was angry, and He used His anger to accomplish a righteous purpose. The same was true when Jesus was known as Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. He was frequently angry with individuals and nations—sometimes so much so that He destroyed them. The “wrath of God” (scriptural phrase) is kindled when His children disobey Him. This is God we’re talking about—the being in whose image we are made and on whom we are to pattern our lives.

War on Masculinity

Whence cometh, then, the war on anger? I’d like to examine this in context of a larger cultural war on men and masculinity. With the rise of feminism has come a much needed recognition of oppression and abuse of power; usually this has involved men wielding anger as a primary instrument whereby they have accomplished their designs. We all know the saying: “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Further, we are instructed doctrinally that:

“…it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion” (D&C 121:39).

Men (who have traditionally been in positions of power) have so often failed to exercise that power with restraint and to the benefit of humanity that in Western society we have become largely suspicious of men exercising power of any kind. Anger—so often a tool of oppression—has become particularly vilified by association. Thus in Western society especially, men aren’t supposed to be angry; we are supposed to be tame.

The Taming of the Modern Mormon Man (Part 4)

Tweet

by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is Part 4 of a multi-part post. Continued from Parts 1, 2 & 3 here, here and here.

Experiential Weekend

The men’s movement has spawned a number of organizations dedicated to helping men reclaim an elemental wildness that is fundamental to grounded and mature masculinity. All of the groups with which I am familiar have something to offer, but the experience which has been by far the most meaningful to me has been the New Warrior Training Adventure, sponsored by the ManKind Project (MKP).⁶

In addition to being well versed in the work of Robert Bly and other literary luminaries, the founders of the ManKind Project were acutely aware of the aforementioned loss of traditions by which mature masculinity had always been passed from one generation to another. For example, prior to the Industrial Revolution, it was commonplace for fathers to apprentice sons in their respective trades. Native Americans had the “vision quest,” by which young men found their place among the men of their tribe. Most cultures had rites of initiation, passage, or ascension through which young men attained status as men and after which they were expected to share the responsibilities of manhood with respect to the rest of the community.

These traditions and rites having been lost to modern society, young men have been left to find their own way in the world of men. To add insult to injury, many boys grow up in fatherless homes devoid of grounded and mature male role models. The results have been devastating for the rising generation of boys. They wonder how to socialize purposefully and respectfully with the opposite sex; they even struggle to navigate the world of men, especially as it is increasingly dysfunctional in its values and expectations. They often feel isolated and alone, and their failures manifest in violence, crime, and suicide.

MKP seeks to address these problems simultaneously by building a community of men into which men can be properly initiated. Borrowing from history, tradition, literature, and metaphor, the New Warrior Training Adventure (NWTA)⁷ consists of a weekend of rites and exercises by which men are both challenged and supported in creating connection and accountability to other men. They are challenged to identify and face their greatest fears, and they learn community as they watch others do the same. The whole process is one by which men are called to access wild and primitive forces that have long been dormant within them, and which, once properly awakened, can bestow to each man uncommon strength and vitality.

Spiritual Implications

My initiation weekend was perhaps the single greatest personal revelation of my life. Not only did it create an authentic brotherhood I had long sought, but it did indeed awaken deep and primitive voices that I had always thought necessary to suppress. Furthermore, and more importantly, it affirmed my faith and provided insight into the divine I scarcely could have anticipated.

The Taming of the Modern Mormon Man (Part 3)

Tweet

by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is Part 3 of a multi-part post. Continued from Parts 1 & 2 here and here.

Gender Equality versus Gender Sameness

For our purposes, the “taming” of the modern man refers to a growing expectation that men should refrain from traditionally masculine behavior. It includes the expectation—whether realized or merely perceived—that a man must hold back from exercising leadership or authority for fear of being seen as a “male oppressor.” But the issue far transcends LDS concerns of “unrighteous dominion” as we have discussed it. In larger Western culture, we are so sensitized to the historical imbalance of power between men and women that we have moved beyond seeking gender equality to insisting on gender sameness.

As I understand it, the ideal of gender equality recognizes complementary differences between genders but equally values both. On the other hand, gender sameness (my term) pursues equality of the sexes by ignoring or attempting to eliminate the differences between the two. Gender equality may be difficult to assess or achieve when men and women assume different roles; if so, gender sameness proposes a solution: rather than organizing men and women according to different roles, we can pretend they are the same.

For a frame of reference, consider three examples that illustrate the degree of shift in societal thinking about gender during recent decades:

1. Women in combat. As the US military has struggled with its pursuit of gender equality, it has become increasingly apparent that combat experience is directly related to opportunity for advancement. Those in command have had to (in some cases forcibly) abandon long-held notions that men are better suited for combat.


2. Gay marriage. Advocates of traditional (opposite sex) marriage held that the two different genders formed a complementary unit. Arguments about equality aside, gay marriage advocates have downplayed the importance of gender in marriage, contending that gender should not factor into marriage privileges.


3. Ordaining women. As women have asserted their right to lead congregations, many protestant denominations have started to ordain women to the priesthood along with the men.

Our purpose is not to argue the merits or liabilities of any of the above; rather, it is to highlight the degree to which gender constructs have changed in recent years. None of our three enumerated examples would have been likely or possible were it not for the current focus on gender sameness. Whether fair or not, gender used to be an organizing element in the division of labor and assumption of roles between the sexes. In our latest cultural calculus, however, gender must be discounted or entirely ignored.

Problems

Honorable as it may seem in the pursuit of gender equality, gender sameness is not without problems, the first of which is biology.

The Taming of the Modern Mormon Man (Part 2)

Tweet

by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is Part 2 of a multi-part post. Continued from Part 1 here.

Spirit of Contention

The first of these is the spirit of contention. This is among the most frequently misunderstood doctrines in the Church today. Members of the Church often interpret the Savior’s counsel in 3 Nephi 11 to mean that anger and conflict are evil, and that if one is willing to fight for something he is “of the devil.”

On further examination, however, this isn’t what the Savior is saying at all. Let’s take a closer look:

“And according as I have commanded you thus shall ye baptize. And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been.

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another” (3 Nephi 11:28-29).

The Savior’s doctrine regarding contention has often been misinterpreted as a command to avoid conflict in every circumstance and at all costs. However, it is critical to note the context. The Savior was speaking principally of contention among members of the Church regarding points of doctrine. Conflict cannot give rise to revelation or doctrinal clarity; these are obtained through different means entirely.

There are, however, numerous instances in scripture where righteous men were called to contend against sin and error and/or defend the cause of truth. They entered into conflict and in some cases were rejected because they avoided it. Consider a different take on the scriptural passage whereby the Lord calls Samuel, and Eli instructs him to say, “Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth.” That’s where we usually stop, but let’s keep reading:

And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.

In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end.

For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not (1 Samuel 3:11-13).

What was Eli’s sin? He knew of his sons’ iniquity but failed to confront and correct them. Why? We can only imagine, but suffice it to say that confrontation requires energy—energy parents are sometimes unwilling to expend. As a young men’s leader I routinely encountered parents who wouldn’t require their sons to attend Sunday meetings because they didn’t want them to grow up resenting the Church. More than once I asked them how often they excused these same sons from mowing the lawn for fear they would resent the grass. When we fail to provide instruction or correction to our children in the name of conflict avoidance, are we failing in the discharge of parental duty?

The Taming of the Modern Mormon Man (Part 1)

Tweet

by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is Part 1 of a multi-part post to run the rest of this week.

I first stumbled across the MMM website only recently. As an inherently visual creature, I was immediately struck by the graphic of the man holding the baby bottle. I saw someone who—although tired of trying to calm his fussy little one—was nevertheless glad for the opportunity to escape the mundane and collect his thoughts while allowing his child the freedom to wander semi-supervised in the church foyer. I reflected on the internal dialog I’d entertained many times in similar settings. I saw myself.

To me the image represented the resignation I’d felt when my life was on autopilot. I had the nice home, the decent marriage, and the steady job—albeit the kind that slowly robs a man of his pride, confidence, and independence. It was when life couldn’t have been any better that I sometimes wondered if it could get any worse.

I had been tamed.¹

In retrospect it had happened so gradually I hadn’t even been aware it had happened at all. Childhood had set the stage perfectly. My parents had a high conflict relationship, and their arguments frequently centered on church activity and attendance. My father was LDS but not active, and I grew up swayed to my mother’s view that his “unrighteousness” was the cause of all the problems at home. Hence I determined at an early age to remain active in the Church and to avoid conflict at all costs. Anger was not an option.

My perspective on anger was heavily reinforced through years of church activity. I learned to equate anger with sin. Anger was associated with all sorts of evil: unrighteous dominion, the spirit of contention, and a host of other ills imputed to the “natural man.” Furthermore, I understood that the “natural man is an enemy to God,” and that his base impulses had to be put off, overcome, and subjugated to the governance of the spirit. Consider for example this counsel given during the priesthood session of the October 2009 General Conference:

“I ask, is it possible to feel the Spirit of our Heavenly Father when we are angry? I know of no instance where such would be the case.

***

To be angry is to yield to the influence of Satan. No one can make us angry. It is our choice. If we desire to have a proper spirit with us at all times, we must choose to refrain from becoming angry. I testify that such is possible.”

I wish to tread lightly here. In context, this speaker was talking about the many instances where anger gives rise to abuse, oppression, and other unrighteousness. Unfortunately we know that such is often the case, even among the men of the Church to whom this leader was speaking. This vast problem needs to be identified and corrected, and this leader was forthrightly doing so.

Gender Incongruence and the LDS Church: Frontier of Understanding (Parts 1-4)

Tweet

by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is the full installment of this week's multi-part post. Parts 1, 2, 3 & 4 here, here, here and here.

In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have taught that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Although we are accustomed to thinking of this doctrine as unique to the LDS tradition, it is in fact among the first truths recorded in scripture:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27).

The image of God, which includes male and female, is the image and pattern after which God created Adam and Eve, whereupon which He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28). Latter-day Saints believe the family is "ordained of God." In other words, we hold the family—consisting of man, woman, and children—to be divinely organized by God for the accomplishment of His work, which is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

The fact that man and woman act together in the creation of life is in accordance with divine design. Latter-day Saints believe that sexual relations within the bonds of matrimony constitute a sacrament of marriage, binding two souls together according to the covenant they have made. This pattern, instituted of God for the happiness of His children, neither originated in nor concludes with the mortal sphere. According to the plan of happiness, the family is the fundamental social unit both in time and eternity.

For the vast majority of His children, the nuclear family—consisting of man, woman and children—is congruent with individual development in terms of biology, identity, and attraction. For example, most individuals that appear to be male have functional male sexual anatomy, experience an internal sense of being male, as well as feelings of attraction toward women. Conversely, most individuals that appear to be female have functional female sexual anatomy, experience an internal sense of being female, as well as feelings of attraction toward men. For the purposes of this article, I will refer to this agreement of biology, identity, and attraction as gender congruence.

Gender congruence is so common to the human experience that it is difficult for many to imagine a state of incongruence between biology, gender, and attraction. Furthermore, gender congruence—the most common outcome of human development—is so innate to personal experience that few individuals outside the social sciences even become aware that biology, gender, and attraction are separate constructs that can and do develop independently of each other.

When we consider the central role of procreation in the Plan of Happiness along with the declaration that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," it should not surprise us to realize that these teachings undergird a set of cultural beliefs within the Church about those whose experiences are different from the gender congruent majority. These beliefs might be summarized as follows:

1. Since gender "is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal identity," matters of gender and sex are always clearly defined in the mortal state.
2. A loving Father in Heaven wouldn’t create circumstances that give rise to gender uncertainty, gender incongruence, or same-sex attraction.
3. Uncertainty (or confusion) about sex or gender is a Sign of the Times and/or evidence of the deterioration of society.
4. Gender incongruence proceeds from an individual’s decision to deviate from the Plan of Happiness.

My purpose is to give members of the Church the understanding necessary to "bear one another's burdens" in terms of gender incongruence, just as we are under covenant to do so with regard to every other problem incidental to the mortal sphere. Although I will not be writing in technical terms, some basic biological concepts bear explanation and discussion; my goal is to do so in a manner accessible to the general membership of the Church.

Gender Incongruence and the LDS Church: Frontier of Understanding (Part 4)

Tweet

by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is the final installment of a multi-part post. Continued from Parts 1, 2 & 3 here, here and here.

Crossroads

With the recent revolution in thinking about gender incongruence, the world will be increasingly unable to discern our Christianity if it continues to witness the perceived rejection of those who struggle. Thus the Church stands at a cultural crossroads: If it changes its policies toward same-sex marriage or other gender-incongruent situations, the Church risks diluting its focus on the eternal family as it is currently defined. However, if the Church is not perceived as welcoming of gender-incongruent individuals, it will increasingly fail to be seen as a light to the world.

Observing the ever-changing attitudes and values of society—and hopeful for the Second Coming of the Savior—some members of the Church have adopted a defeatist attitude toward the world and the issues set forth herein. Some expect that the Lord will come and save the Saints from having to wrestle with gender incongruence and related challenges.

Church members study the signs of the times and prepare for the return of the Messiah, but ultimately the Lord will come when He chooses. Until then, He has set forth his expectation that, as Saints, we are to study the issues and work out our own salvation. With a perfect knowledge of human development and sexuality, the Lord is neither limited in His capacity to understand nor inclined to judge according to the contracted notions of men. Rather, He loves all of His children and seeks to save each of them. We are not fit for His kingdom until our attitudes fully reflect His. There is much room for growth among Latter-day Saints in the care, love, and welcoming of those with gender incongruence.

When we consider the doctrine that "It is not good that … man should be alone" along with the understanding that gender incongruence (including same-sex attraction) is not purposely chosen, it is clear that for most in the world, the issue of same-sex marriage is viewed not through the lens of righteousness versus wickedness, but rather from the perspective that mutual commitment is worth honoring. Imagine for a moment that the men of the Church were given a commandment to remain single throughout mortality. Would we offer support to them, or would we leave them to carry this burden alone? In either case, what kind of success might we expect? Certainly there is more room for compassion and understanding regarding this issue than is common in our discourse.

Regarding the cultural crossroads at which the Church now stands, we may remember that the Church faced a similar juncture regarding polygamy. When the Church faced a threat to its mission and its very existence over plural marriage, the prophet changed the policy—but not the doctrine—of marriage. The Manifesto clearly outlines the thought process behind the change. Members of the Church were asked to consider whether the entire work of the Church should cease because of the persecution that surrounded the issue of plural marriage. The answer was that the Church would observe the law of the land in order to realize its mission. Are echoes of the past applicable today?

Finally, we return to The Family: A Proclamation to the World, which teaches that "Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation." Earlier we considered one circumstance that called for individual adaptation. Are there others? Is there space for us to acknowledge that certain individual and family situations are beyond doctrinal reconciliation here in mortality? Can we grow such that as Church members we support our brothers and sisters with gender incongruence, offering encouragement and love while withholding judgment? Can we do less and still call ourselves Latter-day Saints?

Gender Incongruence and the LDS Church: Frontier of Understanding (Part 3)

Tweet

by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is Part 3 of a multi-part post. Continued from Parts 1 & 2 here and here.

Cultural Beliefs Revisited

Earlier we summarized a set of cultural beliefs within the Church about those whose experiences are different from the gender congruent majority. In light of what we have just considered, let us revisit each of them in turn:

1) Since gender "is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal and eternal identity," matters of gender and sex are always clearly defined in the mortal state.

LDS doctrine asserts that gender is immutable and eternal. This gospel principle suggests an ideal that frequently is not met in mortality. We have considered a few of the many disorders of sex development, along with some of the genetic and hormonal conditions that may seriously complicate matters of sex and gender identity and development. While biological sex, gender, and attraction usually develop according to a pattern that naturally perpetuates life, each is separate. Whether in matters of biological sex, gender identity, or attraction, gender incongruence usually unfolds outside of an individual’s awareness and/or control.

2) A loving Father in Heaven wouldn't create circumstances that give rise to gender uncertainty, gender incongruence, or same-sex attraction.

This is one of the most infatuating and divisive beliefs regarding matters of sex and gender in LDS culture—and certainly one of the most persistent. The belief originates from a misapplication of logic: If the eternal pattern of life and procreation includes perfect agreement between sex, gender, and attraction, how could the children of God—being His creations—experience anything different? Or, in other words, "Why would a loving Father do that to His children?"

The answer is that he wouldn't. And doesn't—any more than He creates war, famine, disease, or natural disasters. Each of these is common to a fallen, mortal state. But the fact that God doesn't create gender incongruence is not to say that many of His children don't experience the same, because they do. Matters of sex, gender, and individual development are not immune from the effects of the Fall.

As a church, we collectively invite nonbelievers to take the proverbial "leap of faith"—to choose to believe in something they have not yet experienced. Many refuse to do so, saying they cannot believe in something without experiencing physical proof. When we say, in effect, that gender incongruence does not exist because we personally haven't experienced it (or because we don't want to believe it exists or because it makes us uncomfortable), are we not essentially making the same mistake? At the very least, we are allowing personal ignorance and biases to interfere with the support and compassion we might otherwise render to our brothers and sisters who struggle with some of the more difficult challenges of mortality.

3) Uncertainty (or confusion) about sex or gender is a Sign of the Times and/or evidence of the deterioration of society.

This has been a common interpretation of the increasing visibility given to matters of gender incongruence, particularly as those outside the gender-congruent majority have been more vocal in asserting their points of view. However, other factors are at play here, and in the interest of our discussion I will observe a few of them.

First, from the scientific community has come the understanding that gender incongruence is neither consciously chosen nor likely to change over time. This understanding has been at odds with the cultural/religious belief (still to be revisited) that gender incongruence proceeds from an individual's decision to deviate from the Plan of Happiness. However, this understanding has prompted a seismic shift in thought about those who struggle with gender incongruence. The effects of that revolution are still being realized.

Second, in our day modern technology increasingly facilitates communication between those with common interests who had previously been unable to connect. This happens not only with regard to gender congruence/incongruence, but also with many other issues, concerns, and interests. Communication networks have provided a voice to many groups who have not previously been accorded an audience in the public square.

Third, when we finally do hear these voices, is it surprising that the gender congruent majority would be uncomfortable with their messages—particularly when they focus on what has been termed "radical self-acceptance"? Or to use the words of one observer: "That's fine if [gay and lesbian individuals] want to live their lives however they want, but do they have to demand that the rest of us accept it and call it normal?"

This question strikes at the heart of the acceptance that gender incongruent individuals seek for themselves. For a frame of reference, recall that several decades ago, left-handed individuals were encouraged (and often forced) to adopt right-handedness because it was viewed as "correct" in the minds of many educators. We might suppose that left-handed individuals disliked this coercion and welcomed the day when they could choose to exercise their preferences without it.

From that frame of reference, we might understand the greater aversion that gender-incongruent individuals have to the messages that they are defective and that they therefore must live their lives according to someone else's determination of what is right for them. For many of these individuals, the process of "coming out" involves an acceptance of self that is likewise a final and deliberate rejection of self-hatred and self-loathing. We might not agree with the message, but from this example hopefully we can understand its context, and how it doesn't stem from a person's desire to be "wicked."

4) Gender incongruence proceeds from an individual's decision to deviate from the Plan of Happiness.

As understanding replaces ignorance, this belief persists primarily among those who cling to tradition over truth, and who prefer to render judgment instead of compassion. Can we pass judgment on that which we haven't experienced? Or can we continue to deny the reality of gender incongruence because we haven't personally experienced it? Does personal discomfort prevent us from rendering Christlike compassion?

Not always but often, discomfort with a particular issue can be an indication of inner conflict. Being at peace with our own individual sexuality can help us think clearly and render support without judgment to those whose struggles might be very different from our own.

Gender Incongruence and the LDS Church: Frontier of Understanding (Part 2)

Tweet

by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is Part 2 of a multi-part post. Continued from Part 1 here.

Gender and Individual Identity

Consider for a moment the experience of an individual with androgen insensitivity syndrome—one of the disorders of sex development described in the previous section. These individuals that are genetically male (with X and Y chromosomes) nevertheless develop as females, along with outwardly female sexual anatomy. Most do not become aware of their condition until they are medically examined to find the cause of infertility when they are trying to conceive children.

Imagine what it might be like to grow up normally as a female, only to learn during adulthood that you are genetically male, and that your female gender presentation is due to a genetic error. In the context of the current discussion, imagine further what we might say should such an individual express feelings of gender confusion (e.g., that the externally manifested gender did not match the individual's internal experience).³

This illustration helps us separate the concept of biological sex from that of gender identity. Whereas biological sex refers primarily to sexual anatomy and physical characteristics, gender identity refers to an individual's internal experience of gender. Most often gender identity is consistent with biological sex, but sometimes it is not. For reasons not clearly understood, there are cases where the inner sense of gender identity does not match the outward manifestation of biological sex. Interestingly, most often this incongruence cannot be explained by a recognized disorder of sex development spoken of in the previous section.

What we do know is that gender formation and identity are highly influenced by culture. That is, parents typically convey to children expectations about gender in accordance with a child's biological sex; thus children learn to identify with a particular gender based on these experiences and expectations. Furthermore, gender identification happens early in a child's development—well before the age of 8, and this gender identity is most often stable over time. Typically, when an individual announces as an adult that outwardly perceived gender is opposite that of inner experience, that individual is most often acknowledging later in life a gender identity that formed earlier during childhood.

For the gender congruent majority, the separation of biological sex and gender identity is difficult both to imagine and to understand. Few outside the social sciences are able to clearly separate gender identity from biological sex. This is because: 1) gender is so innate to personal experience that most lack a frame of reference for understanding how gender can differ from biological sex; 2) gender incongruence is seldom disclosed; and 3) exposure to these topics is limited outside college courses that specifically address them.

We also know that identification with a particular gender is a developmental process; gender identity is not something an individual consciously chooses. This is true both for gender-congruent and gender-incongruent individuals. For a frame of reference, ask yourself if you can remember choosing to see yourself as male or female. Alternatively, you might ask why an individual would bring upon him or herself shame and ridicule by choosing to identify with a gender that is opposite his or her biological sex. Sometimes gender-incongruent individuals seek surgical intervention for their condition. In doing so, they are generally not trying to change gender; rather, they are seeking to make their external appearance and biology congruent with their internal sense of gender identity.

Gender Incongruence and the LDS Church: Frontier of Understanding (Part 1)

Tweet

by Russ Peterson:

Note: This is Part 1 of a multi-part post to run the rest of this week.

In The Family: A Proclamation to the World, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve have taught that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Although we are accustomed to thinking of this doctrine as unique to the LDS tradition, it is in fact among the first truths recorded in scripture:

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:27).

The image of God, which includes male and female, is the image and pattern after which God created Adam and Eve, whereupon which He commanded them to multiply and replenish the earth (Genesis 1:28). Latter-day Saints believe the family is "ordained of God." In other words, we hold the family—consisting of man, woman, and children—to be divinely organized by God for the accomplishment of His work, which is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39).

The fact that man and woman act together in the creation of life is in accordance with divine design. Latter-day Saints believe that sexual relations within the bonds of matrimony constitute a sacrament of marriage, binding two souls together according to the covenant they have made. This pattern, instituted of God for the happiness of His children, neither originated in nor concludes with the mortal sphere. According to the plan of happiness, the family is the fundamental social unit both in time and eternity.

For the vast majority of His children, the nuclear family—consisting of man, woman and children—is congruent with individual development in terms of biology, identity, and attraction. For example, most individuals that appear to be male have functional male sexual anatomy, experience an internal sense of being male, as well as feelings of attraction toward women. Conversely, most individuals that appear to be female have functional female sexual anatomy, experience an internal sense of being female, as well as feelings of attraction toward men. For the purposes of this article, I will refer to this agreement of biology, identity, and attraction as gender congruence.