Radio Free Mormon: 020: Making Doctrine Out Of Nothing At All

In Radio Free Mormon fashion, RFM tackles the sentence within the The Family: A Proclamation to the World, that Gender is Eternal and does the research to show is if such was really a doctrine previously taught within Mormonism or if the Church created this Doctrine….. “Out of Nothing At All”.  The solution for the LGBT issue is sitting right at their feet and RFM makes it clear to direct their attention right to it.


12 thoughts on “Radio Free Mormon: 020: Making Doctrine Out Of Nothing At All

  1. A lot of times when D&C 76:24 is quoted, especially in conference, it’s misquoted.

    24 That by him [Christ], and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters UNTO God.

    The speakers want to use it to say “begotten sons and daughters [of] God”.

    • Good point, Ryan!

      The standard works, including the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, are frequently misused in this regard.

      A good example is King Benjamin’s address where being begotten of Jesus, and becoming his sons and daughters, is looked at in a very different context where it is clear the author is talking about something that happens in this life, as opposed to a spirit birth in the premortal existence:


      Mosiah 5:7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

  2. Another home run. Why can’t we be open to our complex, interesting and often contradicting theology? Certainly not boring. I hope that we will let go of certitude and be OK with not knowing a lot of these things, and as a result relax a lot of the lines we’ve drawn in the sand based on some of these shaky doctrinal positions.

    • Thanks for the kind words, Felix!

      You know, another thought that just occurred to me has to do with Joseph Fielding Smith’s idea that the sex organs of the non-exalted are removed in the eternities.

      JFS would be the first person to say that we measure truth by the scriptures; that is why they are called the “standard works,” because they are the standard by which we judge the truth of any pronouncement.

      It doesn’t matter whether the person is a prophet; if what he says contradicts the standard works, that teaching should be rejected.

      And yet, here is JFS on the other hand promoting a half-baked doctrine that conflicts with Alma 11:41-44!

      I guess what’s good for the goose isn’t necessarily good for the gander. ;^)


  3. I have always been confused by the gnolem spirit thing and was completely unaware of the B. H. Roberts connection.

    I can’t believe that for years now I keep learning new things that I had no idea even existed. Reading the BoM some 20+ times certainly hasn’t taught me much (about the real facts).

  4. Great Podcast as usual. Always look forward to days when I have a new RFM podcast in my feed.
    You have become a validating source for many of my own thoughts and frustrations. The collateral damage for me to be public about my own thoughts is too great. (Which sadly says a lot about our Mormon culture). I find listening to you and Bill a good source for my own mental reasoning and processing and gives me hope for a time we I will be able to speak more openly in my own circle. I think we share many of the same frustrations, One of my struggles is the level of thinking I am at with many of my concerns or issues is not a level that a more orthodox person can relate to. The way you present many of your topics, dissecting them down into enough basic parts with historical context allows me to have a better dialogue with many around me. And that give me hope.

    Until next time
    Thanks and keep up the good work.

  5. I haven’t listened to the entire episode yet, as I’ll explain, which was too bad because it seems like it is a good one.

    I turned it off when you started to refer to intersex people as “hermaphrodites,” which I learned about when attempting to address this type of topic here


    As the user Kiimberly_Anderson said:

    “If you’re going to have a post proclaiming your knowledge of Intersex conditions, please refrain from using the word ‘hermaphrodite’ anywhere in your post.

    It’s old, coarse and extremely problematic.

    There are newer terms which I’m sure you are aware of by now. Please use them.”

    That’s what the ‘I’ in LGBTQIA stands for, intersex. If there’s some way for you to correct this, I’m sure there are a lot of people that would benefit from not only this knowledge but also allowing those who are intersex to know that they’re being recognized and we’re wworking to understand and include them.

    Thanks and hopefully this doesn’t come across as harsh.

    • Hi, Hasbrochem!

      No, it does not seem harsh. In fact, I appreciate the information.

      Even as I was recording the podcast, somewhere in the back of my mind was the thought that there might be some newer term for “hermaphrodite” but I did not take the time to look it up. (Sometimes these podcasts are crunched for time!)

      Although I certainly do not mean to offend, I am not a fan of using “new terms” that are less understood in place of old terms that are more understood.

      If you actually stopped listening because I used a certain word that you found offensive, that is probably an overreaction, especially where you seem to understand my intent is not to offend but to communicate.

      But this is all likely because I am not into political correctness. I am more like the term hermaphrodite itself; “old, coarse and extremely problematic.”

      Thanks for listening! At least part way!



  6. Thanks RFM, I really enjoyed that, and learned some new things. If I can be picky, it is with the use of the word ‘hermaphrodite’. This is an outdated term for people, and generally refers to having both male and female sexual organs. Intersex better represents the complexity of humans, and can refer to diversity in sexual organs, chromosomes, gonads, and sex hormones. In short, intersex refers to both genotype and phenotype. I would love to hear the church’s view on what makes somebody male or female. Is it the sexual organs or is it the chromosomes? Would the church be comfortable giving the priesthood to a person with XY chromosomes who didn’t produce testosterone and so had reduced genitalia and presented naturally as a female? There are so many possibilities and it is way more common than people think. There are plenty of people who don’t even know that they are intersex.

    Besides a minority of people (e.g. the anti-transgender through lack of understanding, and some radical feminists who don’t accept it on philosophical grounds), most experts in the field make the distinction between biological sex, and gender. A person whose biological sex matches their gender is referred to as cis-gender, and a person whose biological sex does not match their gender is referred to as trans-gender. Transgender does not just refer to male to female and female to male, because neither biological sex or gender are binary. Because of this, it is quite common for intersex people to identify as transgender, and vice-versa. The reason that I mention all this is because it is complicated, as you expressed on the podcast. For the Proclamation to say that all mankind are male or female is ludicrous. I have heard the argument that intersex or transgender people are so uncommon as to not be worth worrying about. However, the creators of doctrine should ask the question as to how many ‘mistakes’ are acceptable. Does God makes mistakes in creating life, or at least does the system he created for generating life have flaws? If so, then why? If God makes mistakes with people’s sex, then is it not possible that God also makes mistakes with gender? An alternative possibility is that God doesn’t make mistakes, and that people are exactly the way God intended, and doctrine needs to embrace the diversity. Another alternative, which is probably the simplest, is that God is not involved.

    Sorry if I sounded preachy with all that. I am absolutely loving your podcasts and your willingness to tackle these questions head-on, with logic, thorough research, and a streak of sarcasm. Keep up the good work!

    • Thanks for your comments, David!

      For some reason, I feel differently about being corrected by a listener who didn’t turn off my podcast because of being offended by a word!

      As you recognize, the point I was trying to make was starting with the Family Proclamation doctrine that gender is an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

      The reason I started there was to begin with what we can observe in mortality; before going to the things we cannot observe before and after this life.

      In order to make this point, I needed to use as an example persons born with sexual organs of both male and female.

      What is the currently correct term for that?

      You say “intersex” can refer to diversity in sexual organs, chromosomes, gonads, and sex hormones.

      But I needed for my example the diversity in sexual organs alone. Is there a more specific word for that than simply “intersex?”

      Thanks for listening! All the way through!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *