In The Beginning He Created Them Male And Female ...

[EllenMaksoud]

A significant number of ancient readers (Jews, Christians, Gnostics) assimilated the creation story in Genesis 1-2 to the "myth of the primal androgyne," wherein the first human being was androgynous and only later split into two sexes. Some have suggested that Paul's statement that "in Christ . . . there is no male and female" (Gal. 3:28) is responding to this idea. The pairs of opposites listed in Gal. 3:28 (Jew/Gentile, slave/free, male/female) belong to the "present evil age" and do not exist in the "new creation" in Christ.

 

Jason BeDuhn, for example, writes: "The creation of human beings as gendered and sexed is a rupture of unity to be overcome 'in Christ.' In 1 Corinthians 11, attention is directed to woman as the derivative form, but Paul is really speaking about the creation of the differentiated man and woman. . . . The question for Paul is how much and how soon this rupture is healed. But precisely because he understands gender division as a rupture of a more perfect unity, Paul has sufficient motivation to ascribe the origin of this rupture to angels rather than to God" (BeDuhn, "'Because of the Angels': Unveiling Paul's Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 11," Journal of Biblical Literature 118, no. 2 [1999]: 309).

 

For other discussions of the myth of the primal androgyne as it relates to Paul, see especially Wayne A. Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," History of Religions 13, no. 3 [1974]: 165–208, and Daniel Boyarin, "Paul and the Genealogy of Gender," Representations 41 [Winter 1993]: 1–33).

Um, you are not Mormon, are you?

[thesometimesaint]

Moses saw these things in vision also according to the PoGP. How about let us not denigrate the bible in the name of science mythology.

 

I don't denigrate the Bible or any LDS Scripture. I take my cue from the Book of Mormon itself. "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ".

[Calm]

Um, you are not Mormon, are you?

He is just reporting the scholarly discussion that he thought you might be interested in, not his personal beliefs.  

[EllenMaksoud]

A significant number of ancient readers (Jews, Christians, Gnostics) assimilated the creation story in Genesis 1-2 to the "myth of the primal androgyne," wherein the first human being was androgynous and only later split into two sexes. Some have suggested that Paul's statement that "in Christ . . . there is no male and female" (Gal. 3:28) is responding to this idea. The pairs of opposites listed in Gal. 3:28 (Jew/Gentile, slave/free, male/female) belong to the "present evil age" and do not exist in the "new creation" in Christ.

 

Jason BeDuhn, for example, writes: "The creation of human beings as gendered and sexed is a rupture of unity to be overcome 'in Christ.' In 1 Corinthians 11, attention is directed to woman as the derivative form, but Paul is really speaking about the creation of the differentiated man and woman. . . . The question for Paul is how much and how soon this rupture is healed. But precisely because he understands gender division as a rupture of a more perfect unity, Paul has sufficient motivation to ascribe the origin of this rupture to angels rather than to God" (BeDuhn, "'Because of the Angels': Unveiling Paul's Anthropology in 1 Corinthians 11," Journal of Biblical Literature 118, no. 2 [1999]: 309).

 

For other discussions of the myth of the primal androgyne as it relates to Paul, see especially Wayne A. Meeks, "The Image of the Androgyne: Some Uses of a Symbol in Earliest Christianity," History of Religions 13, no. 3 [1974]: 165–208, and Daniel Boyarin, "Paul and the Genealogy of Gender," Representations 41 [Winter 1993]: 1–33).

Sorry, I did not mean to be disrespectful, and was trying to make a joke. And it is clear that there are certain conflicts within our written scriptures that get ignored, leaving us with questions, endless questions. So, it is clear to me that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit exist. The rest of our belief has a lot of murkiness.  In some belief systems, they try to describe their beliefs in extremely narrow and dogmatic terms. Some practice a minimalist theology at their core, feeling that there are few really certain things, God being the only sure thing, the rest being man's best effort to describe what they see to them.

[Calm]

Sorry I missed the joke. I think I am being very 'literal' today for some reason.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Scientific evidence shows that the above statement is not strictly true as is evidenced by the Intersex people we know about. There is not strictly XX and XY but XXXX, XY46, and XXY and thousands of other genetic anomalies. In the past, these things were veiled in secrecy largely because of prejudice and the difficulty of identifying the problem.

 

So, to the ancient religions readers, I wonder if the original language actually said "Male and Female" ?

 

From Jewish scholars I have known, there are sections of the OT that are complete nonsense when interpreted by them in comparison to modern Christian texts. I wonder why we do not talk about these things?

What of the Jewish scholars, the Prophets. The men who talked with God "face to face". Lord save us from the PhDs, who think "because they are learned think they are wise"...I guess I am not smart enough to know what is true anymore. Someday I wonder if I'll be the last one to leave and lock up. But I know when I leave this life, I will leave as a believer and if I start to think I am too smart to have faith...I pray God take me quickly.

[thesometimesaint]

What of the Jewish scholars, the Prophets. The men who talked with God "face to face". Lord save us from the PhDs, who think "because they are learned think they are wise"...I guess I am not smart enough to know what is true anymore. Someday I wonder if I'll be the last one to leave and lock up. But I know when I leave this life, I will leave as a believer and if I start to think I am too smart to have faith...I pray God take me quickly.

 

I believe it is impossible to be too learned to believe in God. It is entirely possible to believe you are too learned to not believe in God.

[Rob Osborn]

I believe it is impossible to be too learned to believe in God. It is entirely possible to believe you are too learned to not believe in God.

And yet we must be careful with knowledge which can lead to pride and foolish wisdom. I see this a lot with the sciences and those high up the academic food chain. It really appears the smarter they get, the more prestigious by mans standards they become, the less they rely on and believe or can see God's hand in all things. At some point they get the attitude of "look at me and my wisdom you foolish idiot, I have a degree!"

 

There are a few who use their knowledge with wisdom and remain humble, but few and far between are they! How often i get in a discussion and they will start spouting off credentials of degrees or prestige and how we should worship them in this.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Rob Osborn

[EllenMaksoud]

What of the Jewish scholars, the Prophets. The men who talked with God "face to face". Lord save us from the PhDs, who think "because they are learned think they are wise"...I guess I am not smart enough to know what is true anymore. Someday I wonder if I'll be the last one to leave and lock up. But I know when I leave this life, I will leave as a believer and if I start to think I am too smart to have faith...I pray God take me quickly.

What makes you think my faith is failing or weak?  The ideas about intersex conditions are scientifically demonstrable. And, had you been standing in the operation theatre when some are born, and witnessed the fact that they have both sets of organs, you might be seeing things in a very different way.

[thesometimesaint]

And yet we must be careful with knowledge which can lead to pride and foolish wisdom. I see this a lot with the sciences and those high up the academic food chain. It really appears the smarter they get, the more prestigious by mans standards they become, the less they rely on and believe or can see God's hand in all things. At some point they get the attitude of "look at me and my wisdom you foolish idiot, I have a degree!"

 

There are a few who use their knowledge with wisdom and remain humble, but few and far between are they! How often i get in a discussion and they will start spouting off credentials of degrees or prestige and how we should worship them in this.

 

That is why a little knowledge is such a dangerous thing. From religious dogma that there is but one God named Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet, to Newton is the last word in physics.

 

I go to a mechanic to fix my car because they are supposed to have the education, training, skills, and credentials necessary to fix my car. My Bishop good man and member of the Church that he is is not a credentialed mechanic. So I don't go to him for my car repairs. OTOH my son is a good man and member of the Church. Plus he is a licensed credentialed car mechanic. I do take my car repairs to him. I have another son also a good man and member of the Church. He couldn't repair a car to save his life, but he is a fully qualified and licensed RN so I can trust him with my life.

 

Long story story short. The best(wisest) course of action is to go to those that do have the necessary education, training, skills, and credentials to do what is asked of them.

[Cold Steel]

So, to the ancient religions readers, I wonder if the original language actually said "Male and Female"? From Jewish scholars I have known, there are sections of the OT that are complete nonsense when interpreted by them in comparison to modern Christian texts. I wonder why we do not talk about these things?

 

I suppose it all depends on how one views the word God or Gods.

 

People ridicule the Mormons because we believe that the Father has a female counterpart. If God created man in his image, after his likeness, male and female, I've always taken that to mean that there is a female component to God. The Trinity is based on there being three components, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But if three can be "One," then why not more? Jesus prayed to the Father regarding the Twelve: "...that they may be ONE, even as WE are ONE." Or, more clearly, that the apostles may be ONE in the same sense that WE are ONE. Thus, if God is a continuum made up of pluralities, there can be an indefinite number of components.

 

God is the one who devised the family metaphor, Himself as the Father and Yahweh as the Son. But doesn't the metaphor fall short if there is no female component? In other words, if there is a Father, there also must be a Mother to give meaning to the metaphor. Thus, Elohim [Gods] create man in their image, after their form and likeness, in my view, demands a female component.

 

Some Christians believe the "image" God presents isn't literal, but figurative. After all, man is clearly built for a terrestrial existence. We have two feet so as to walk, a nose wherewith to breathe, hands to clasp and move objects and operate tools, ears to hear which, conveniently, are cupped to produce better sound and detect where it's coming from. What would an omnipotent Being be doing with such a body unless He had lived in a terrestrial environment at one point, but that would be ridiculous, right? And here is the genius of Joseph Smith had he been making it all up.

 

If one believes in the exaltation of the Family (a singular noun with a presumed plurality), then it stands to reason that godhood doesn't only apply to men. All of this is explained in holy places, but it also has to be extended upward to be understood in context.

 

That's my take, at least. I don't know if this is what you were looking for.

 

.

[EllenMaksoud]

I suppose it all depends on how one views the word God or Gods.

 

People ridicule the Mormons because we believe that the Father has a female counterpart. If God created man in his image, after his likeness, male and female, I've always taken that to mean that there is a female component to God. The Trinity is based on there being three components, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But if three can be "One," then why not more? Jesus prayed to the Father regarding the Twelve: "...that they may be ONE, even as WE are ONE." Or, more clearly, that the apostles may be ONE in the same sense that WE are ONE. Thus, if God is a continuum made up of pluralities, there can be an indefinite number of components.

 

God is the one who devised the family metaphor, Himself as the Father and Yahweh as the Son. But doesn't the metaphor fall short if there is no female component? In other words, if there is a Father, there also must be a Mother to give meaning to the metaphor. Thus, Elohim [Gods] create man in their image, after their form and likeness, in my view, demands a female component.

 

Some Christians believe the "image" God presents isn't literal, but figurative. After all, man is clearly built for a terrestrial existence. We have two feet so as to walk, a nose wherewith to breathe, hands to clasp and move objects and operate tools, ears to hear which, conveniently, are cupped to produce better sound and detect where it's coming from. What would an omnipotent Being be doing with such a body unless He had lived in a terrestrial environment at one point, but that would be ridiculous, right? And here is the genius of Joseph Smith had he been making it all up.

 

If one believes in the exaltation of the Family (a singular noun with a presumed plurality), then it stands to reason that godhood doesn't only apply to men. All of this is explained in holy places, but it also has to be extended upward to be understood in context.

 

That's my take, at least. I don't know if this is what you were looking for.

 

.

In my opinion, Isaac Asimov's, "Foundation Trillogy" is the best description of overall history of the universe that exists in Man's world. It is at times wordy and boring, and now is in 6 parts, not 3. His model, I think, fits right into Mormon theology. It seems likely that in the beginning, material out in the universe somehow achieved a logical network and later became sentient. Perhaps this sentient being eventually made habitable planets and then made its self a physical body. One of my issues with LDS theology is that we believe that God "is" flesh and bone, while I believe that God "can be" flesh and bone, else how could he exist in space, traveling planet to planet.

 

As to our being created exclusively Male and Female another poster has postulated an interesting theory that we were that way in the Garden of Eden, but since the fall our bodies have fallen prey to entropy, and even our genetic structure has begun to fail, though it will probably last til Christ's return.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I believe it is impossible to be too learned to believe in God. It is entirely possible to believe you are too learned to not believe in God.

I did not try to imply that, just those who set them up as an authority unto themselves.

[thesometimesaint]

In my opinion, Isaac Asimov's, "Foundation Trillogy" is the best description of overall history of the universe that exists in Man's world. It is at times wordy and boring, and now is in 6 parts, not 3. His model, I think, fits right into Mormon theology. It seems likely that in the beginning, material out in the universe somehow achieved a logical network and later became sentient. Perhaps this sentient being eventually made habitable planets and then made its self a physical body. One of my issues with LDS theology is that we believe that God "is" flesh and bone, while I believe that God "can be" flesh and bone, else how could he exist in space, traveling planet to planet.

 

As to our being created exclusively Male and Female another poster has postulated an interesting theory that we were that way in the Garden of Eden, but since the fall our bodies have fallen prey to entropy, and even our genetic structure has begun to fail, though it will probably last til Christ's return.

 

God is a God of flesh and bone. We don't believe in an on again off again Resurrection.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

What makes you think my faith is failing or weak?  The ideas about intersex conditions are scientifically demonstrable. And, had you been standing in the operation theatre when some are born, and witnessed the fact that they have both sets of organs, you might be seeing things in a very different way.

That still happens is many species, ever man. Frogs in Africa can change sex in a single sex environment. This does not men that Adam and Eve, were an independent creation in the image of God as scripture foretells. Keep faith we will all know and understand all things one day...but as Paul says, "in this life we see through a glass darkly". This is my fear of those who think they are so learned that they become authority unto themselves and lose all faith in anything that cannot be quantified in equation.

[EllenMaksoud]

God is a God of flesh and bone. We don't believe in an on again off again Resurrection.

I don't believe that God is exclusively flesh and bone full stop. If he could not adapt his presentation to his present surroundings, he would not be God. Else, how would his son be able to appear and disappear at will?

[EllenMaksoud]

That still happens is many species, ever man. Frogs in Africa can change sex in a single sex environment. This does not men that Adam and Eve, were an independent creation in the image of God as scripture foretells. Keep faith we will all know and understand all things one day...but as Paul says, "in this life we see through a glass darkly". This is my fear of those who think they are so learned that they become authority unto themselves and lose all faith in anything that cannot be quantified in equation.

It is odd that learning has deluded the faith of many. Knowledge can increase one's faith, especially in the study of brain science and genetics.

[ERayR]

No, the temple film/endowment tells us that it is "figurative", and not historic.  There is a difference between historicity and historical.  We believe Adam and Eve actually existed in a Garden. The details of the Creation and the Garden may not have been transmitted to us in a modern historical method, so myth and symbolism may have mixed with history along the way.

 

Some is figurative but some want to make it all figurative and symbolic.  I think that if we are not careful we are going to "symbolize our way right out of the gospel. 

[Rob Osborn]

That is why a little knowledge is such a dangerous thing. From religious dogma that there is but one God named Allah and Mohammed is his Prophet, to Newton is the last word in physics.

 

I go to a mechanic to fix my car because they are supposed to have the education, training, skills, and credentials necessary to fix my car. My Bishop good man and member of the Church that he is is not a credentialed mechanic. So I don't go to him for my car repairs. OTOH my son is a good man and member of the Church. Plus he is a licensed credentialed car mechanic. I do take my car repairs to him. I have another son also a good man and member of the Church. He couldn't repair a car to save his life, but he is a fully qualified and licensed RN so I can trust him with my life.

 

Long story story short. The best(wisest) course of action is to go to those that do have the necessary education, training, skills, and credentials to do what is asked of them.

I agree with you. That is why I dont go to scientists to explain or answer questions on how life origibated, whete man came from, or where he is going. None of those questions science can science get right because they refuse to accept that life comes from God, that we have a purpose here, and that man isnt destined to some future evolution but rathet a restoration. Because of this, science should stay far away from trying to answer what they cannot because of their refusal to accept God.

[thesometimesaint]

I don't believe that God is exclusively flesh and bone full stop. If he could not adapt his presentation to his present surroundings, he would not be God. Else, how would his son be able to appear and disappear at will?

 

LDS 101.

 

God has a body of flesh and bone. The early Apostles testified of this in the Bible. Joseph Smith testified to this in his First Vision.

 

There is nothing in LDS belief that says he can't adapt. But that adaption doesn't mean change in form. Resurrection is the inseparable union of body to spirit. He will never again die.

 

We don't know how he is able to appear and disappear seemingly at will. I'd rather not speculation as to how he does it. Suffice it to say say that any technology advanced enough would appear to us as magic, or religion. Shamelessly paraphrasing and adding onto Arther C. Clark.

[EllenMaksoud]

LDS 101.

 

God has a body of flesh and bone. The early Apostles testified of this in the Bible. Joseph Smith testified to this in his First Vision.

 

There is nothing in LDS belief that says he can't adapt. But that adaption doesn't mean change in form. Resurrection is the inseparable union of body to spirit. He will never again die.

 

We don't know how he is able to appear and disappear seemingly at will. I'd rather not speculation as to how he does it. Suffice it to say say that any technology advanced enough would appear to us as magic, or religion. Shamelessly paraphrasing and adding onto Arther C. Clark.

Nope, not backing down on this one.   I can do petulance when it suits me.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree with you. That is why I dont go to scientists to explain or answer questions on how life origibated, whete man came from, or where he is going. None of those questions science can science get right because they refuse to accept that life comes from God, that we have a purpose here, and that man isnt destined to some future evolution but rathet a restoration. Because of this, science should stay far away from trying to answer what they cannot because of their refusal to accept God.

 

I don't look to evolutionists for the answers to abiogenesis either. That is a different scientific discipline. Albeit a related one. IE; I wouldn't expect a car mechanic to build a Saturn 5 rocket either, though they both concern travel in a vehicle.

 

I find it endlessly fascinating that here you are at the most scientific device yet ever invented by man, and yet you deny the very science behind it. Because science can't posit any God or Godlike force onto science.

 

Physical man came from the dust of the ground. I don't know of any science that denies that. His spiritual being is beyond the realm of science, and it can't/doesn't deal with it. Individual scientists are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

 

From a purely science perspective we are here to grow, to learn, to make progress, and to reproduce. Not all that much different than from the LDS perspective.

 

Science by definition can not impose any God or Godlike force. It short circuits the process. If I want to know the value of Pi I can work it out to 3 to the 10 trillionth decimal point using a computer(science) or I can simply go to word of God(Bible) and it is exactly 3. Take your pick.

Edited January 14, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

Nope, not backing down on this one.   I can do petulance when it suits me.

 

I never said you had to back down. I do petulant better.

Edited January 14, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[Stone holm]

I don't believe that God is exclusively flesh and bone full stop. If he could not adapt his presentation to his present surroundings, he would not be God. Else, how would his son be able to appear and disappear at will?

 

I doubt that with Their knowledge of the physical laws They would find it very difficult to accomplish everything needful without popping in and out of their physical bodies.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't look to evolutionists for the answers to abiogenesis either. That is a different scientific discipline. Albeit a related one. IE; I wouldn't expect a car mechanic to build a Saturn 5 rocket either, though they both concern travel in a vehicle.

 

I find it endlessly fascinating that here you are at the most scientific device yet ever invented by man, and yet you deny the very science behind it. Because science can't posit any God or Godlike force onto science.

 

Physical man came from the dust of the ground. I don't know of any science that denies that. His spiritual being is beyond the realm of science, and it can't/doesn't deal with it. Individual scientists are free to believe or not believe as they choose.

 

From a purely science perspective we are here to grow, to learn, to make progress, and to reproduce. Not all that much different than from the LDS perspective.

 

Science by definition can not impose any God or Godlike force. It short circuits the process. If I want to know the value of Pi I can work it out to 3 to the 10 trillionth decimal point using a computer(science) or I can simply go to word of God(Bible) and it is exactly 3. Take your pick.

I don't deny the science behind computer technology, the inspiration for such comes from God both in inspiration and in intelligence to understand by the spirit. And I certainly have no problem acknowledging to others this very thing. I watch a lot of sports and it is pleasent to hear them praise God for their passion, their talents, etc. they know that it isn't science that is the cause of their ability but that of God. You are wrong about science and our position here.

 

From a purely (darwinian) scientific point, man is here to evolve, survive and be the fittest so that the good genetics or mutations are passed on to the next line of species. This science says there is no right or wrong, that it is a social aspect and nothing more- part of our evolved natures. Its completely and fundamentally flawed based off of lies, conjecture and a strong atheist paradigm that seeks to destroy and remove "God" from every and all aspect of public eye, ear and book of learning. Its godless, baseless and in my opinion, damaging as a whole to society.