Jump to content

Nofear

Members
  • Content Count

    1,600
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,003 Excellent

3 Followers

About Nofear

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We know a fair bit more than just that she exists. Well, at least I and several others on this board believe we do. From this article: http://squaretwo.org/Sq2ArticleWelchHeavenlyMother.html though, like some aspects of our doctrines, some are more established than others. Knowledge of Her was part of the Restoration. She existed before the world was created. All humans were created in the image of the Mother and the Father. She is a Goddess in whose likeness Her children will become. She is a united being with the Father. She is a participant in the government of heaven. She is a key to understanding the divine potential of Her children. She is a being with whom humankind will reunite and give an account of their lives. She is humanity’s loving Mother who brings comfort to Her children. She is an active participant of life on earth. She is a being capable and worthy of receiving worship. There are a couple of other things I could add to the list, but, it is probably sufficient.
  2. I also quite agree that gender is an essential aspect. The only real reason I see is "because that is how God and our species does it". I'm quite ok with that. Still leaves some questions, but I don't have them and it seems others here don't (at least not ones that speak to me). Anyway, I have to be off to a funeral for several days and so I shan't be in a position to respond. PS: Though I spoke harshly as to you and science, do note that I generally find your comments insightful to useful. One of the posters I respect and pay attention to.
  3. There are people whose entire research efforts are on quantum gravity. There are ideas and frameworks (and books). But there is no functional theory yet. But this disagreement and our back and forth by and large is completely tangent to the topic of the thread (and it brings out the not-nice-me, though, to be fair, I was accused of restraining my thinking to classical physics -- well, them there's fightin' words :D).
  4. Uh oh, you might indeed get some hate from this members on this board if you suggest God's good is utilitarian (but not from me). We mortals, however, are merely deontological owing to our limited perspectives.
  5. We don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet. Probably will in the future. Nor do I hold to classical physics. That isn't the reason I don't understand what you are saying. It really is just a bunch of gobbley-gook gibberish to me. Doesn't mean it's wrong. Just means I have no idea what you are talking about. Don't fret it. Like I said, says more about me than you. /shrug
  6. I quite agree with you. Still, it is a utilitarian answer and not an explanatory one. Not a big deal though. As you point out, when it comes to God, often we know what he asks of us "just works" and we don't know why. But, I can wonder why still. One of the nice things you point out is the vast plurality of worlds that have existed before us. So very often we Latter-day Saints make the myopic mistake of assuming this world is the end all be all of mortal worlds. The Plan of Happiness has been executed countless times before. It is a plan that works and gets results.
  7. Sorry. I see words that make some sense to me and some I probably agree with. But, honestly, I have no good idea of what you are talking about. It's ok. That says more about me than you. PS: Gravity doesn't "go" anywhere ... it just gets weaker. Technically we currently feel gravitational effects from stars billions of years away. Also, general relativity describes gravity immensely successfully. No flaw has yet be found. But general relativity doesn't even describe it in terms of force. We can simply describe behaviors that could be consistent with what we think of as a force with EM and the strong and weak forces.
  8. My and your world paradigms and language seem to be talking past each other and so neither of us don't understand each other (or at least me understanding you). I see you as saying gender exists after our [something--we use the same word differently] progresses to a point where it[?] chooses an eternal perspective and then gender has meaning and is a "force which manifests or expresses itself according to one’s perspective". I can parrot the words, nonetheless, these same words deny me comprehension.
  9. But Ahab's interpretation of the typo/not-typo works too. Either way.
  10. Thank you for the sensible answer. I quite agree that there is much that is, in many respects, vanity for seeking. I'm a vain person in that way. 1) No, God, or any exalted person, couldn't change their body in a way that would be "wrong". I'm actually ok with the idea that it is theoretically possible and they simply don't because it would not be correct behavior. There are *lots* of things they could do but don't because it would be wrong. There is a part nagging at me that says it's not the full answer but I may have to be content seeing through the glass darkly. 2) "Proven" is perhaps a bit strong, but no reason to contend the point as it that simply leaves the question of why is binary best? This is perhaps the most important aspect of all the questions I asked. 3) I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve had and to some degree understood gender before the fall. Adam, after all, knew Eve's title before the Fall. 4) Very true. I know of *no* account of premortal infants. Every account, however trustworthy or not, has premortal spirits as adults. But that doesn't mean that we didn't have some kind growing phase from infant to adult spirit body. If anybody is aware of such an account, I would be quite interested to hear it. That said, I'm on the camp that prior to our gaining a spirit body our entity did not have gender (or memory, or the ability to make intelligent choices, or pretty much the ability to do anything besides random acts ... but that is a whole different thread/story/discussion).
  11. This is also create. Nonetheless, I changed the language to make it easier to understand. There are lds theologians (e.g. Orson Pratt?) who speculated that intelligence is not individualistic but a property of every particle in the universe. And as such, we did not achieve, specific individual identity until begotten with a spirit body. A variation of the idea you propose. I don't subscribe to either of those but for the question of gender, all three perspectives still yield the same questions.
  12. He apparently wanted holes in his hands, feet, and side... any particular, physical impediment from doing what you propose? There might be spiritual, ethical, and social reasons but are there physical reasons? PS: Take the following quote for what you will (e.g. as validation of your position).
  13. I do indeed see a problem with that. But, just because it is a problem doesn't mean that it is conceptually impossible from a naive perspective. So, I wanted to see if others had insights that move beyond the naive. Instead, I find denials about as philosophically profound (and incorrect) as saying it is impossible to throw a javelin from east to west because the earth is rotating from west to east at hundreds of miles per hour. Color me profoundly unimpressed.
  14. Another aspect upon which we disagree is to what extent exalted beings have control over their resurrected bodies. The idea that don't have any control makes no logical sense. I can alter my physical person quite a bit. It is within today's technology to modify my heart, skin color, face, and much more. With genetic alteration, I can even alter the very code that programs my physical body. That, that is possible even with our very limited understanding and capability. I see exalted beings as being capable of so very, very much more... if they wanted too. I don't say they do but only that they could. Even if an exalted being were pre-disposed to variation and change on a whim for change's sake, I would likely see him or her, over aeons of time, settling on a look and form and not changing much from that. Ability does not mean they do. But, I most definitely believe they. exalted beings, have it within their power to adjust their bodies (physical and spirit) in profound and potentially complete ways. Others, disagree with me. That's fine. The question, for those that might share similarity with my position*, is whether or not "gender" is within the realm of "potentially complete ways" or gender outside of that realm? Part of the answer to that question is a clear sentiment about what, exactly, do we mean by gender and what does it mean to be an eternal principle. I personally answer the latter question by supposing that the male-female paradigm is one that the society of exalted beings "decided"** as being the most conducive to celestial society. But, I don't know why exactly and so I thought to ask if others had thoughts on the issue. * For those that believe in much more limited and less powerful exalted beings the question is moot and they are free to mock the position for reducing to absurdity. Not being in that camp, I think such mockery would be premature and ultimately bite them in their behinds, but I won't begrudge them the behavior. ** The question of "decided" is also moot for some. To them, gender is a principle that existed in intelligences into the infinite past. Logically, I'm not in that same camp of thought.
×
×
  • Create New...