Skip to main content

Ramblings on the Pre-Existence

A random thought occurred to me while at work regarding an individual's gender. Well, it wasn't quite so random, but without getting into TMI details, let's just say that I've often had the thought that I just hate being a girl. There are many reasons for this, and many of these reasons led me to have some semblance of an identity crisis from about 5th to 10th grade, so a large part of my childhood. Anyway, I'm off track a bit. 

I have memories of people in past wards and my own mother even, explain why each person has the gender that they were born with. None of the explanation had anything to do with hormones in the womb or gestation in general, it all had to do with the Mormon concept of the Pre-Existence. They basically reiterated what exactly happened before we came to earth, but they put particular emphasis on the belief that we were the exact same people in heaven as we are now on earth. Translation: I was a girl in heaven, therefore I had to be a girl on earth. I didn't get to choose my gender before agreeing to come to earth. My issue with this now, and I wish I could have formulated this thought into words when I was younger, is how exactly this could be possible when we were just "intelligences"? This is part of Mormon doctrine, not just something I interpreted. We were intelligences WITHOUT bodies. We had to come to earth to get bodies. So our intelligences were gendered in heaven? I don't know, maybe I'm overlooking something that's glaringly obvious, but this doesn't compute with me. According to the creation story, god had to create man and woman, which to me implies that gender didn't exist until we came here. 

Really, this just opens a large can of worms, because then we have to wonder why god is a man and why Jesus was considered his "son" already etc. In my mind though, if we were legitimately just intelligences, either we should have been able to choose how we wanted to come down or our gender wasn't designated and it all came down to how we developed in the womb. To me, either of these options seem more likely than having already been designated as a specific gender. 
I think this bothers me in large part because of the whole gay thing and gender identity disorder. If we were the same in heaven as we are now, that means, that homosexuals were that way in heaven and god didn't condemn them until they were born, which was part of his plan. Why, if they are such an abomination in his sight, wouldn't he have just cast them out with Satan and the rest of his followers? Oh wait, that's right, they claim that being gay is a choice, which is why I have a huge problem. It's a complicated problem, I know, but you can't say that we're the same on earth as we were in heaven if certain individuals are making choices here that they wouldn't have made in heaven. I know a TBM will throw out the whole concept of the veil and how as soon as we crossed it we forgot everything we knew in heaven, but doesn't that also imply, that whatever intelligence we might have been in heaven, is not necessarily the same kind of intelligence we would have developed here on earth, meaning we're not the same on earth as we were in heaven? 

I tried to reconcile the idea of gender identity disorder by believing, despite what other ward members said, that we were able to choose what gender we wanted to be when we came to earth, and those that came out and said that they should have been born the opposite gender just chose incorrectly in heaven and had to suffer the consequences here on earth. It's not a happy reconciliation, but it was the only thing that made sense to me at the time. In some ways I think it still makes sense...if the Pre-Existence were an actual thing. 

What it ultimately comes down to though, is that the Pre-Existence wasn't real and the Mormon doctrine is so full of holes, it should be blatantly obvious that their excuses and reasoning behind gays and gender disorders are completely unfounded. But obviously it's not, otherwise there wouldn't be a huge debate over these concepts.

Also, my little identity crisis was in no way medical or some kind of hormonal imbalance. I was just upset by the inequality in the world and knew that being a girl would mean I could only play softball, not baseball, I would never make as much money as a man, I would never be treated with the same respect as a man, and I would certainly never be esteemed like a man in my own religion. And seriously, menstruation?! Who in there right mind would willingly volunteer to go through that for 40ish years of their life? Life just wasn't fair but I felt that being a guy would make it a little more fair. It didn't. I just made things harder for myself.

That's all I really wanted to get out at the moment. I don't have any research or quotes or supporting evidence for or against, just random thoughts. Thank you for enduring to the end. :)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

In Response to Mr. Greg Trimble

(Apologies for another long post) In a perusal of my Facebook news feed, I stumbled across a lovely article that a neighbor of my parents shared entitled “So…You Think the Book of Mormon is a Fraud” . Mr. Trimble, who authored this lovely article, uses the typical Mormon circular reasoning that states that if the Book of Mormon is true, then Joseph Smith was a prophet; and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the same Church that Christ established while he was on Earth. So in the Mormon mind, it all comes down to whether the BOM is true or not, and for this, they rely on warm fuzzy feelings to confirm that the Book is in fact, true. Mr. Trimble states that he noticed that most of the people who criticize the Book of Mormon the loudest, have not actually read it. While this may be true, I don’t think a person needs to read a book fully to understand whether it’s true or not. That’s what research is for. Reading the Book of Morm

The War in Heaven; Part 2

                I suggest that the extreme horribleness of hell, as portrayed by priests and nuns, is inflated to compensate for its implausibility. If hell were plausible, it would only have to be moderately unpleasant in order to deter. Given that it is so unlikely to be true, it has to be advertised as very scar indeed, to balance its implausibility and retain some deterrence value.                                 Richard Dawkins, God Delusion, pg. 361  I began the first part of this post because of a comment on Facebook and the article that it linked to. I was frustrated by both because they contradict the doctrine I was taught throughout my relation with the Church and they blatantly ignore that it was the same for every member up to the publishing of this article. Not only this, but they make it sound as though the members who believe that we had a choice in heaven between Satan and Jesus (almost every single member) misinterpreted these lessons, and they are the ones at fau

I'm Not a Fan of Matt Walsh: Part 2

Matt Walsh is an Idiot: Why “Yes, Gay Marriage Hurts Me Personally” is not effective. I am a glutton for punishment where Matt Walsh is concerned. He is a pompous ass, and reading his articles makes my blood boil, and not just because he writes for Glen Beck’s network and we don’t share the same opinions. Bottom line is that he is not a great writer. If he were to turn one of his articles into any of my University English professors, he would not have fared well. Even my 11 th grade English teacher would have ripped him a new one. Why: Because he cannot write an argumentative paper. Not a single one of his articles I have read has contained any semblance of argumentation. He likes to say things like, first and second, as if he’s actually introducing solid reasons to support his opinion, but they end up being wordy and condescending with an overabundance of analogies that don’t actually provide support. The article listed in the title of my post is one of Walsh’s more recent