Gender Is Eternal

[Flyonthewall]

...

I wasn't clear if you were directing this at me or not. If so, my answer would be that this verse is specifically talking about our marriage here on earth.

I wasn't really directing it towards anyone in particular, more just at the way the discussion had gone.

The verse, as far as I can see, mentions nothing about earth, but specifies "in the Lord".

I realize I am trying to follow your reasoning on this, and may not arrive at the same result, but are you saying that we are only "in the Lord" while on earth? And when we die, we are no longer "in the Lord"?

You had mentioned anthropomorphism previously, but I think the scriptures state it quite the opposite. Man did not create God in the image of Man, but God created Man in the image of God, both male and female.

We came from God both male and female, and will return to God, both male and female.

[Tacenda]

I've had to suspend my disagreement on certain issues because of the power of Heavenly Father in my own life, here and now, not on what happened to someone in 1820. I maintain that Heavenly Father is who he says he is and that he was fully able to create a male from two eggs, or create a male from one egg, or do what ever he wished to do at the time. The test of our faith is that God can do things outside our understanding, save who he wishes, condemn who he wishes, go where he wishes and assume the form he wishes. He is God and we are not. It is not a vital requirement that we understand or can justify what he does. That is the essence of faith.

100 percent agree.

[danielwoods]

Huh?  How does the masculine "son" not refer to his sex?  He is not and was not a daughter, a high priestess, or the Queen of Queens.  His titles of son, priest, and king all refer to his sex. 

 

Not everything in a masculine tense is intended to have a sexual connotation. 

 

But you said this "people ignoring the statement that there is no male nor female" which to me implies that you see us as interpreting it wrongly when all we are doing is interpreting it in the way you do other attributes that have nothing to do with whether God saves us or not.

 

I was curious how the LDS interpreted that passage. It appears they ignore it. That isn't a problem for me. 

 

Do we disagree on the interpretation of that passage? I'm pretty sure we do. Still not a problem. 

 

I wasn't really directing it towards anyone in particular, more just at the way the discussion had gone.

The verse, as far as I can see, mentions nothing about earth, but specifies "in the Lord".

I realize I am trying to follow your reasoning on this, and may not arrive at the same result, but are you saying that we are only "in the Lord" while on earth? And when we die, we are no longer "in the Lord"?

You had mentioned anthropomorphism previously, but I think the scriptures state it quite the opposite. Man did not create God in the image of Man, but God created Man in the image of God, both male and female.

We came from God both male and female, and will return to God, both male and female.

 

The mentioning of a wife is what constrains the passage to this earth. We only have a wife here on this earth, not beyond death. At least in the Biblical context. 

[Calm]

It appears they ignore it. 

 

No, we do not.  You just think we do because you insist it can only be interpreted one way.  We apply the "there is no male or female" to a specific category, we don't believe it means that suddenly gender ceases to exist.

 

I have thought before that you were pretty fair in your response to LDS even when you disagreed with us.  But if you continue to insist that we ignore a scripture based on a difference of interpretation, I will have to change my mind.

 

In your view then are there no "free" in Christ either?

Edited November 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

No not just from this verse. The question was about Heaven. And just as everyone has an appearance in Heaven, unique to themselves (hair color for example), Christ also has an appearance, which I believe is similar to his body when he was on Earth, as a Male. God of course isn't male or female, so Christ's appearance as a male on earth was to fulfill a role and prophecy. 

But even though they have a different hair colour, they no longer have the appearance of being male or female...even if Christ does?

 

And if they are only male or female in appearance, what in the world does that mean?  After all physical appearance is how in part one determines what someone's sex is. How can one appear to be fully male and yet not be male?

 

Every last commentary I have read on this "ignores" the verse in the same way LDS interprets it---which is that it is talking about the equality of males and females before God, not the removal of gender/sex.  I am curious as to where you discovered your interpretation from.

Edited November 9, 2013 by calmoriah

[Flyonthewall]

...

The mentioning of a wife is what constrains the passage to this earth. We only have a wife here on this earth, not beyond death. At least in the Biblical context.

Sounds kind of circular...

Because YOU believe there is no marriage in heaven, every mention of a wife, or marriage, must exclude heaven.

We do not put such constraints on the scriptures.

The scripture in Galatians, simply means that one is not favored of the Lord simply because they are a male, or female, rich, or poor, bond or free, Jew or gentile.

Peter says the same thing in Acts 10:

"34 ¶Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

[BlueDreams]

I was curious how the LDS interpreted that passage. It appears they ignore it. That isn't a problem for me. 

 

Do we disagree on the interpretation of that passage? I'm pretty sure we do. Still not a problem. 

 

 

As Cal mentioned, we don't ignore it. We interpret it differently from you....within the context of the verse, other scriptures (like in genesis), and other books of LDS scripture. When I read the scripture, it sounds more like a poetic reproach to the people of that time. Each of the categories represented major hierarchical divisions that would have shown up in the church body of that time. It's not simply about distinctions, but about value/worth that society gives the individual. Jew was more chosen than gentile, men had more worth than women, and the free were above the bonded. Obviously the covenants tied to the Jew are still of importance to them, because the next verse down describes them as Abraham's seed....but it's opening that blessing equally to all, instead of tied to certain blood lines. So when I read the verse.....even as a stand alone, I don't read that there will be no gender in heaven, but that all are alike unto God and will have equal worth, access, and power from God, despite whatever earthly social value that is given to them now. 

 

In the context of genesis (and similar LDS scripture, like moses), to LDS it indicates that the image of God is male and female. So for us God is gendered (both male and female) or rather gender is a godly trait....one of the first that is bestowed.

 

And in other verses of scripture that read similarly to galatians, such as 2 Ne 26:33:

 

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

 

It supports how I've read Galatians: that all are invited to come unto Christ....that everybody will have equal opportunity and worth in coming unto Him. And that His ways/sight is not how we often see or value others and our world.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

[danielwoods]

No, we do not.  You just think we do because you insist it can only be interpreted one way.  We apply the "there is no male or female" to a specific category, we don't believe it means that suddenly gender ceases to exist.

 

I have thought before that you were pretty fair in your response to LDS even when you disagreed with us.  But if you continue to insist that we ignore a scripture based on a difference of interpretation, I will have to change my mind.

 

In your view then are there no "free" in Christ either?

 

Cal, I respect the LDS but have large disagreements with them. In this case male and female roles in the LDS heaven when compared to that of a non-LDS heaven. So, when it says these attributes (male/female) are irrelevant to God, they are not irrelevant in the LDS view of Heaven, at least to the extent of my understanding of it. That is my only reason for saying that the LDS ignore this. Now, I understand this, and it happens quite often. One passage is given a "lessor" status because it might have been interpreted by a prophet in such a way. Thus I've read the saying before that the Bible is interpreted in light of newer revelation. 

 

But even though they have a different hair colour, they no longer have the appearance of being male or female...even if Christ does?

 

And if they are only male or female in appearance, what in the world does that mean?  After all physical appearance is how in part one determines what someone's sex is. How can one appear to be fully male and yet not be male?

 

Every last commentary I have read on this "ignores" the verse in the same way LDS interprets it---which is that it is talking about the equality of males and females before God, not the removal of gender/sex.  I am curious as to where you discovered your interpretation from.

 

And I'm not saying that our identity is removed. We are still male or female or who we are. What I am saying is that it is irrelevant to what we do and will be in Heaven. "To God..." meaning in the spirit and in Heaven. Similar to hair color. So to be "male or female" is really nothing different than skin color, it has no pro-creative purpose, or limitation either. 

 

Sounds kind of circular...

Because YOU believe there is no marriage in heaven, every mention of a wife, or marriage, must exclude heaven.

We do not put such constraints on the scriptures.

The scripture in Galatians, simply means that one is not favored of the Lord simply because they are a male, or female, rich, or poor, bond or free, Jew or gentile.

Peter says the same thing in Acts 10:

"34 ¶Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

35 But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him."

 

Because Jesus teaches there's no marriage in Heaven, I believe it. 

 

As Cal mentioned, we don't ignore it. We interpret it differently from you....within the context of the verse, other scriptures (like in genesis), and other books of LDS scripture. When I read the scripture, it sounds more like a poetic reproach to the people of that time. Each of the categories represented major hierarchical divisions that would have shown up in the church body of that time. It's not simply about distinctions, but about value/worth that society gives the individual. Jew was more chosen than gentile, men had more worth than women, and the free were above the bonded. Obviously the covenants tied to the Jew are still of importance to them, because the next verse down describes them as Abraham's seed....but it's opening that blessing equally to all, instead of tied to certain blood lines. So when I read the verse.....even as a stand alone, I don't read that there will be no gender in heaven, but that all are alike unto God and will have equal worth, access, and power from God, despite whatever earthly social value that is given to them now. 

 

In the context of genesis (and similar LDS scripture, like moses), to LDS it indicates that the image of God is male and female. So for us God is gendered (both male and female) or rather gender is a godly trait....one of the first that is bestowed.

 

And in other verses of scripture that read similarly to galatians, such as 2 Ne 26:33:

 

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

 

It supports how I've read Galatians: that all are invited to come unto Christ....that everybody will have equal opportunity and worth in coming unto Him. And that His ways/sight is not how we often see or value others and our world.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

What does that mean God is "gendered"? Please explain. 

Edited November 9, 2013 by danielwoods

[Stone holm]

Cal, I respect the LDS but have large disagreements with them. In this case male and female roles in the LDS heaven when compared to that of a non-LDS heaven. So, when it says these attributes (male/female) are irrelevant to God, they are not irrelevant in the LDS view of Heaven, at least to the extent of my understanding of it. That is my only reason for saying that the LDS ignore this. Now, I understand this, and it happens quite often. One passage is given a "lessor" status because it might have been interpreted by a prophet in such a way. Thus I've read the saying before that the Bible is interpreted in light of newer revelation. 

 

 

And I'm not saying that our identity is removed. We are still male or female or who we are. What I am saying is that it is irrelevant to what we do and will be in Heaven. "To God..." meaning in the spirit and in Heaven. Similar to hair color. So to be "male or female" is really nothing different than skin color, it has no pro-creative purpose, or limitation either. 

 

 

Because Jesus teaches there's no marriage in Heaven, I believe it. 

 

 

What does that mean God is "gendered"? Please explain.

No this is a matter of running a verse way beyond its intended meaning, and no there will be no giving in marriage in Heaven, because it must be resolved before the final judgment.

[BlueDreams]

What does that mean God is "gendered"? Please explain. 

 

I tried to with the addendum that gender is a godly trait, one given to us directly from God and in the image of God. It also helps to remember that we believe in Heavenly Mother as well as Father, that sealing/eternal marriage is the highest ordinance, and that our bodies are one of the main reasons that we're here. God to us, is literally male and female. When it says that we were created in God's image, male and female, we take it quite literally. The image of God is male and female and there is less distinction between what is spiritual and temporal (physical). For us, the ultimate form is complete union of body and spirit to make soul....that all that we are becomes manifestations of who God is (ie. exaltation). 

 

I hope that is clearer.

 

With luv,

BD

[pogi]

danielwoods,

 

Galatians 3:28 is not speaking of our sex (or lack thereof) in heaven.  When you put this verse in context you find that it is not speaking about heaven at all, but is about our life here on earth after becoming one through Christ by faith and baptism.  This verse is used to enforce the view that each individual's title to the inheritance is altogether irrespective of external distinctions, and is based solely upon our being clothed with Christ.   

 

Clearly, there were still bondmen, freemen, men, and women within the primitive church after baptism.  Baptism did not absolve them of their respective roles or sex, and neither will death and resurrection.  That is simply not what this verse is about.

 

Even in light of this teaching, women were not even allowed to teach men in the primitive church.  Clearly this verse meant something to them other than what you presume it means.  

Edited November 9, 2013 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

The idea that someone had intercourse to have Jesus Christ is something I had not heretofore explored. And God being God, it is my guess that he just took two of Mary's eggs and um made a baby. He can do that if he wants to.  I just can't handle the idea of an angel sneaking in through the window.

 

I don't believe God has to sneak anywhere. Moreover we do not teach that God has sex with Mary. We don't know how he did it.

Test tube babies have been around for awhile now. I'm not suggesting that is how God did it. But it does permit a baby without sexual intercourse.

[pogi]

daniel, what do you make of the following passages?

 

"Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (Mark 10:8-9)"

 

"And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

 

Note that this verse says they are "no more" twain, so why should I believe that death will separate what God hath joined together?  Is death more powerful than the sealing or "binding" power of God?  The following verse answers that question:

 

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 16:19).

Edited November 9, 2013 by pogi

[Stone holm]

I don't believe God has to sneak anywhere. Moreover we do not teach that God has sex with Mary. We don't know how he did it.

Test tube babies have been around for awhile now. I'm not suggesting that is how God did it. But it does permit a baby without sexual intercourse.

I do believe BY taught it, could be wrong but think he did.

[danielwoods]

I tried to with the addendum that gender is a godly trait, one given to us directly from God and in the image of God. It also helps to remember that we believe in Heavenly Mother as well as Father, that sealing/eternal marriage is the highest ordinance, and that our bodies are one of the main reasons that we're here. God to us, is literally male and female. When it says that we were created in God's image, male and female, we take it quite literally. The image of God is male and female and there is less distinction between what is spiritual and temporal (physical). For us, the ultimate form is complete union of body and spirit to make soul....that all that we are becomes manifestations of who God is (ie. exaltation). 

 

I hope that is clearer.

 

With luv,

BD

 

Thank you. 

 

 

 

daniel, what do you make of the following passages?

 

"Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" (Mark 10:8-9)"

 

"And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

 

Note that this verse says they are "no more" twain, so why should I believe that death will separate what God hath joined together?  Is death more powerful than the sealing or "binding" power of God?  The following verse answers that question:

 

"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matthew 16:19).

 

 

What do I make of them? 

 

Mark 10 is talking about here on Earth only. 

 

How do we know that death stops the binding power of God? Because Romans 7 states that is the case. 

 

Matt. 16:19 is miss-translated. We never tell heaven what will be bound or loosed. 

[pogi]

 

Mark 10 is talking about here on Earth only. 

 

Do you really believe that Christ was teaching that single people in this life (like the apostle Paul) are not in the Lord? Or does it make more sense that he was speaking of something more eternal?  Because marriage does not happen in heaven, Paul and all others will have the opportunity to be married before the final judgment in order to qualify to be "in the Lord."

 

How do we know that death stops the binding power of God? Because Romans 7 states that is the case. 

 

Romans 7 does not speak of the binding power of God, it speaks of the mosaic law.   

 

Matt. 16:19 is miss-translated. We never tell heaven what will be bound or loosed. 

 

Sounds to me like you are telling heaven that this passage should be loosed. That is too Convenient!  This passage is not about man telling heaven anything.  You have it backward, it is heaven telling man something.  

Edited November 9, 2013 by pogi

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Dunno about anyone else, but personally I think it just shows that the Proclamation is only a proclamation, and not some capital-R Revelation. I think we've treated it with more reverence than we should. There's some good stuff in there, but I also disagree with it in several places, and think the King Follett Discourse and related D&C verses contradict it - I think uncreated Intelligence, the human mind, is only "gendered" when breathed into our physical bodies. I think the Church is going to have to reexamine a lot of these sorts of gender issues in the coming years.

The example given above does not change the proclamation, and The Church Handbook deals with difficult issues such as this...doctrine can only be addressed within the context of heaven taking into the account of our limited earthly understanding.

[Flyonthewall]

Do you really believe that Christ was teaching that single people in this life (like the apostle Paul) are not in the Lord? Or does it make more sense that he was speaking of something more eternal?  Because marriage does not happen in heaven, Paul and all others will have the opportunity to be married before the final judgment in order to qualify to be "in the Lord."

 

How do we know that death stops the binding power of God? Because Romans 7 states that is the case. 

 

Romans 7 does not speak of the binding power of God, it speaks of the mosaic law.   

 

Matt. 16:19 is miss-translated. We never tell heaven what will be bound or loosed. 

 

Sounds to me like you are telling heaven that this passage should be loosed. That is too Convenient!  This passage is not about man telling heaven anything.  You have it backward, it is heaven telling man something.

IIRC, Daniel translates that verse as man can only bind on earth what has already been bound in heaven. This is why he says that we never tell heaven what will be bound because we can only bind what has already been bound.

FWIW...

Edited November 10, 2013 by Flyonthewall

[Stone holm]

Do you really believe that Christ was teaching that single people in this life (like the apostle Paul) are not in the Lord? Or does it make more sense that he was speaking of something more eternal?  Because marriage does not happen in heaven, Paul and all others will have the opportunity to be married before the final judgment in order to qualify to be "in the Lord."

 

How do we know that death stops the binding power of God? Because Romans 7 states that is the case. 

 

Romans 7 does not speak of the binding power of God, it speaks of the mosaic law.   

 

Matt. 16:19 is miss-translated. We never tell heaven what will be bound or loosed. 

 

Sounds to me like you are telling heaven that this passage should be loosed. That is too Convenient!  This passage is not about man telling heaven anything.  You have it backward, it is heaven telling man something.

CFR on Paul being single please.

[pogi]

 

IIRC, Daniel translates that verse as man can only bind on earth what has already been bound in heaven. This is why he says that we never tell heaven what will be bound because we can only bind what has already been bound.

FWIW...

 

If something is already bound, what is the point of binding it again?  The verse says whatsoever you bind on earth "shall be" bound in heaven, not whatsoever you bind on earth "has already been" bound in heaven.  I dont understand how one could come to that conclusion.

 

Even if your interpretation is correct, what you are saying is that the binding of marriage has already been bound in heaven and it still suggests that marriages are eternal as evidenced by 1 Corinthians 7:27.

Edited November 10, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

CFR on Paul being single please.

 

1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

 

I suppose you could come to the conclusion that he is a widow.  Either way, he is a proponent of celibacy as evidenced by verse 1.

[Stone holm]

1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

 

I suppose you could come to the conclusion that he is a widow.  Either way, he is a proponent of celibacy as evidenced by verse 1.

1Corinthians 9:5 what say you?

[Stone holm]

1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

 

I suppose you could come to the conclusion that he is a widow.  Either way, he is a proponent of celibacy as evidenced by verse 1.

I would hardly think so given marriage was a requirement for a Deacon or Bishop

[danielwoods]

Do you really believe that Christ was teaching that single people in this life (like the apostle Paul) are not in the Lord? Or does it make more sense that he was speaking of something more eternal?  Because marriage does not happen in heaven, Paul and all others will have the opportunity to be married before the final judgment in order to qualify to be "in the Lord."

 

How do we know that death stops the binding power of God? Because Romans 7 states that is the case. 

 

Romans 7 does not speak of the binding power of God, it speaks of the mosaic law.   

 

Matt. 16:19 is miss-translated. We never tell heaven what will be bound or loosed. 

 

Sounds to me like you are telling heaven that this passage should be loosed. That is too Convenient!  This passage is not about man telling heaven anything.  You have it backward, it is heaven telling man something.

 

First, the quote, "Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord" comes from 1 Cor. 11:11, not Mark. And the whole context is Earthly, not Heavenly. 

 

Romans 7:1 "Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband."

 

Which points out that what "God joined together..." is no longer together after death. 

 

 

IIRC, Daniel translates that verse as man can only bind on earth what has already been bound in heaven. This is why he says that we never tell heaven what will be bound because we can only bind what has already been bound.

FWIW...

 

 

If something is already bound, what is the point of binding it again?  The verse says whatsoever you bind on earth "shall be" bound in heaven, not whatsoever you bind on earth "has already been" bound in heaven.  I dont understand how one could come to that conclusion.

 

Even if your interpretation is correct, what you are saying is that the binding of marriage has already been bound in heaven and it still suggests that marriages are eternal as evidenced by 1 Corinthians 7:27.

Flyonthewall is correct. And the verse hasn't anything to do with marriage. As Jesus plainly stated that there is no married or marriage in heaven (except his). Luke 20:35 "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage."

 

[Bernard Gui]

Fearfulness that some hateful member would eventually hunt me down and expose me to the church has not often overtaken me. Today it dominates me and makes me feel weak.

 

Such a member should be subject to censure. It is no one's business but your own and God's, and if you wish,

your bishop.