Hunter/gatherer Social Norms And The Eternities

[Stone holm]

It appears that religious fundamentalists and evolutionists may have more in common than at first imagined.  It doesn't take a tremendous amount of paleontological and anthropological research to reach the reasonable assumption that during the Stone Age and well beyond, that gender may have dictated social roles.  After all this was the era when disputes over hunting grounds, women, water, etc. were basically settled with swords, axes, cudgels, spears, bows and arrows.  Men had superior physical strength and killing things whether it meant killing large game or predators, or humans with the technology at hand normally required strength.  David and Goliath encounters were the exception not the rule.  So while men were out doing their killing thing, or getting ready to do the killings thing, or out on patrol to see if they might need to do the killing thing, that left the women to bear children, raise children, gather fruits, vegetables, and herbs, etc.  Makes perfect sense.

 

In addition, we can assume that the genders eventually became somewhat hardwired to those tasks (evolutionist argument).  In other words, men were killing machines and women were baby producing, nurturing, and gathering machines.  Elder Boyd K. Packer fairly recently pointed out the fallacy of putting the question of gender of a pet up for a vote.  Gender is as gender is regardless of what we may try to collectively decide.  This concept is backed up by the Proclamation on the Family which indicates that gender is eternal.  Therefore the line of reasoning flows, the way we dress, behave, run our family, and socio/economic roles are fixed as wells.

 

The question I have is, so does that mean that the eternal realms are based on Stone Age norms?  Did we get the "natural man is an enemy to God" exactly backwards, given that the natural man (the Stone Age Man) was actually following God's pattern for the assignment of roles?

[The Nehor]

[Palerider]

It appears that religious fundamentalists and evolutionists may have more in common than at first imagined.  It doesn't take a tremendous amount of paleontological and anthropological research to reach the reasonable assumption that during the Stone Age and well beyond, that gender may have dictated social roles.  After all this was the era when disputes over hunting grounds, women, water, etc. were basically settled with swords, axes, cudgels, spears, bows and arrows.  Men had superior physical strength and killing things whether it meant killing large game or predators, or humans with the technology at hand normally required strength.  David and Goliath encounters were the exception not the rule.  So while men were out doing their killing thing, or getting ready to do the killings thing, or out on patrol to see if they might need to do the killing thing, that left the women to bear children, raise children, gather fruits, vegetables, and herbs, etc.  Makes perfect sense.

 

In addition, we can assume that the genders eventually became somewhat hardwired to those tasks (evolutionist argument).  In other words, men were killing machines and women were baby producing, nurturing, and gathering machines.  Elder Boyd K. Packer fairly recently pointed out the fallacy of putting the question of gender of a pet up for a vote.  Gender is as gender is regardless of what we may try to collectively decide.  This concept is backed up by the Proclamation on the Family which indicates that gender is eternal.  Therefore the line of reasoning flows, the way we dress, behave, run our family, and socio/economic roles are fixed as wells.

 

The question I have is, so does that mean that the eternal realms are based on Stone Age norms?  Did we get the "natural man is an enemy to God" exactly backwards, given that the natural man (the Stone Age Man) was actually following God's pattern for the assignment of roles?

 

 

I don't know how much credibility you personally give to "The Fall" but it's my impression that if we weren't fallen beings (regardless of how one theorizes we got there) or "natural" beings, we would be quite a bit more interested in working cooperatively with our fellow human beings than the pattern that has "evolved" has allowed us.

 

So one could ask one's self, "Is the present and past "traditional" gender roll even the one that God intended or is it a temporal compromise for our "natural life here on earth?

[Stone holm]

I don't know how much credibility you personally give to "The Fall" but it's my impression that if we weren't fallen beings (regardless of how one theorizes we got there) or "natural" beings, we would be quite a bit more interested in working cooperatively with our fellow human beings than the pattern that has "evolved" has allowed us.

 

So one could ask one's self, "Is the present and past "traditional" gender roll even the one that God intended or is it a temporal compromise for our "natural life here on earth?

Well unless one assumes that the Celestial World is like the Garden of Eden, which appeared to be gardening gathering society, then I do not believe that it is anything like a hunter gatherer society and gender roles other than spirit children creation would be irrelevant. On the other hand, we have the Proclamation which basically proclaims gender roles are eternal, so I guess we do need to look at hunter gatherers and the natural man to understand the hereafter, but it seems like, if that be the case, that our theology went off the rails with all this talk of the natural man being an enemy to God.

[Palerider]

Well unless one assumes that the Celestial World is like the Garden of Eden, which appeared to be gardening gathering society, then I do not believe that it is anything like a hunter gatherer society and gender roles other than spirit children creation would be irrelevant. On the other hand, we have the Proclamation which basically proclaims gender roles are eternal, so I guess we do need to look at hunter gatherers and the natural man to understand the hereafter, but it seems like, if that be the case, that our theology went off the rails with all this talk of the natural man being an enemy to God.

 

I think you have it here.

 

Regarding the rest of your conclusion, I think it's important to remember that the church may also be addressing "Gender re-assignment" issues, where one "feels" they may have been born in the "wrong body" and want to pursue corrective surgery. 

 

I'm not sure from your OP how looking at the hunter gatherer society of the past, informs us of how future roles appear in the hereafter. Could you be more specific?

 

I've always understood the "natural man" to be the strong tendency towards corruption in all it's forms, greed, lust, jealousy, rage, resistance/rebellion towards God, etc., but I've always seen it as applying equally across the sexes regardless of the functional "role" one played in society.  

[Stone holm]

I think you have it here.

 

Regarding the rest of your conclusion, I think it's important to remember that the church may also be addressing "Gender re-assignment" issues, where one "feels" they may have been born in the "wrong body" and want to pursue corrective surgery. 

 

I'm not sure from your OP how looking at the hunter gatherer society of the past, informs us of how future roles appear in the hereafter. Could you be more specific?

 

I've always understood the "natural man" to be the strong tendency towards corruption in all it's forms, greed, lust, jealousy, rage, resistance/rebellion towards God, etc., but I've always seen it as applying equally across the sexes regardless of the functional "role" one played in society.

I am a bit conflicted in my thinking, I rather doubt that stone age social constructs apply to the Celestial Kingdom. However, some of the teachings of the Church might lead to such conclusions with our emphasis on tribalism, assignment of roles by gender, even to a certain degree our dress codes. I see all of that to be fairly irrelevant to the Celestial Kingdom. However, since we have basically zero public teachings with regards to Heavenly Mothers role in the eternities, I am somewhat at a loss to find support other than apparently the Stone Age wiring and cultural norms are more important than we might otherwise think. And my conception of the true "natural man" would necessarily be Stone Age man.

[halconero]

I think we need a more thorough review of gender roles in the Paleolithic and the Neolithic periods, as well as their biocultural development, along with a review of gender throughout the world's societies.

I'm about to go into church, so I'll post more later, but there are nuances, key points, and biological evidences that are a bit confused, or lacking in the original post.

Happy Sabbath y'all!

[Palerider]

I am a bit conflicted in my thinking, I rather doubt that stone age social constructs apply to the Celestial Kingdom. However, some of the teachings of the Church might lead to such conclusions with our emphasis on tribalism, assignment of roles by gender, even to a certain degree our dress codes. I see all of that to be fairly irrelevant to the Celestial Kingdom. However, since we have basically zero public teachings with regards to Heavenly Mothers role in the eternities, I am somewhat at a loss to find support other than apparently the Stone Age wiring and cultural norms are more important than we might otherwise think. And my conception of the true "natural man" would necessarily be Stone Age man.

 

On the one hand, since I find little evidence outside of Mormon theology, to support a "Heavenly Mother" concept in Christianity, it doesn't present the same problems for me as it does for LDS. 

 

I'm not burdened with having to resolve the issues of "spirit creation" and post-earth gender roles that are engendered by the Mormon concept of "Heavenly Mother".

 

At first glance, the concept does seem to answer some of the questions that all people have about how we will occupy our time in the Heavens hereafter, but then as we begin to "reason" our way through the concept, it tends to lead us down an even deeper rabbit hole than that experienced by those Christians who have no idea what is going to take place in the after life.

 

Personally, I'm happy to try to live in a manner that will get me from point A. to point B. at which time I'll accept (and probably be amazed) by whatever is unfolded at that time.  Even if it entails a "Heavenly Mother".....

Edited January 12, 2014 by Palerider

[Stone holm]

On the one hand, since I find little evidence outside of Mormon theology, to support a "Heavenly Mother" concept in Christianity, it doesn't present the same problems for me as it does for LDS. 

 

I'm not burdened with having to resolve the issues of "spirit creation" and post-earth gender roles that are engendered by the Mormon concept of "Heavenly Mother".

 

At first glance, the concept does seem to answer some of the questions that all people have about how we will occupy our time in the Heavens hereafter, but then as we begin to "reason" our way through the concept, it tends to lead us down an even deeper rabbit hole than that experienced by those Christians who have no idea what is going to take place in the after life.

 

Personally, I'm happy to try to live in a manner that will get me from point A. to point B. at which time I'll accept (and probably be amazed) by whatever is unfolded at that time.  Even if it entails a "Heavenly Mother".....

So you discount concepts that the primitive Church may have had a concept of a Heavenly Mother?

[Palerider]

So you discount concepts that the primitive Church may have had a concept of a Heavenly Mother?

 

I'm just very careful about giving credence to any concept that "evolved" in Christianity after the deaths of the original Apostles.

 

I'm inclined to believe that the original Gospel was in distress very soon after the Savior's final ascencion. I think Paul's writings bear that out.

 

It isn't that I would say it isn't even a possibility that a Heavenly Mother exists. It's just that I don't see any person of true authority declaring that we need to know such things in order to be saved. The Savior certainly never mentioned it as I recall.

 

I feel the same way about the nature of the Godhead. I have my own suspicions but really, who cares whether they are physically embodied, are separated or whatever?

 

What is significant to me is that my life reflects in my heart and actions, the light that I receive from God and that He has power to save.

 

I'm willing to leave the unanswered questions to Heavenly Father.

[halconero]

1) The evolutionist theory is that masculine stature and physicality is related to sexual dimorphism inherited from earlier ancestors, rather than being able to hunt or provide better. Sexual dimorphism is where one sex is larger than the other, as it has to compete with others of the same sex through fighting or displays (think macho man, beating your chest, being loud, cocky, etc). The larger the male, the more likely it will get the female, and reproduce. 

 

2) Gender roles and gender have had, and continue to have variance across the world. While almost every culture has historical gender roles, in some cases these were not hardwired, could be crossed, and were highly egalitarian. Furthermore, there are some cultures with more than just the two genders based on our biological sex. Some have 3 genders, some up to 5.

[Stone holm]

1) The evolutionist theory is that masculine stature and physicality is related to sexual dimorphism inherited from earlier ancestors, rather than being able to hunt or provide better. Sexual dimorphism is where one sex is larger than the other, as it has to compete with others of the same sex through fighting or displays (think macho man, beating your chest, being loud, cocky, etc). The larger the male, the more likely it will get the female, and reproduce. 

 

2) Gender roles and gender have had, and continue to have variance across the world. While almost every culture has historical gender roles, in some cases these were not hardwired, could be crossed, and were highly egalitarian. Furthermore, there are some cultures with more than just the two genders based on our biological sex. Some have 3 genders, some up to 5.

 

True, there are exceptions to any particular rule.  Female fish tend to be larger than male fish, sometimes by a considerable amount -- but amongst mammals, it tends to be the male is the larger and stronger -- which does not necessarily make one a better hunter especially with small game after snares and smaller weaponry developed -- but if you are trying to take something large down in a communal hunt or solitary hunt by use of a spear or cruder weapon, then you best have brute strength.  Same goes with killing off human enemies and other predators.  Regardless of the root cause of the sexual dimorphism, the point remains that in most human cultures the difference established the gender roles and those gender roles assigned by primitive hunter/gatherer societies are now being held in place by tradition and by religion.

[halconero]

Except for the Hijra in India and Hinduism and parts of Islam, the sworn-virgins in Albania, Bugis people in Indonesia who divide humanity into five genders and who practice Islam, or the "Two-spirits" of Native American history.

 

Sex and Gender are interrelated, but not synonymous categories, something with which I think you would agree. The idea that man and woman are the universal genders of humanity, and intricately linked with biology, is a false notion when compared to the modern and historical anthropological record. It is, for the most part, specific to a Western European, Judeo-Christian context. I can agree with you when you say that European concepts of masculinity and femininity grew from early gender roles in Europa. 

 

Do I believe Heaven has a culture? Absolutely. I believe that concepts of gender can and are promulgated by God's culture. 

 

I would argue that such culture concepts of gender are not universal among his children and are NOT necessarily held by all traditions or religions.

[Ahab]

The natural man refers to our fallen condition, or what is now our default status as fallen man. And the atonement is what we need or needed to rise above our fallen condition so that we can become what we were before the fall. Gender roles are eternal in either condition.