Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Sexual Vs. Asexual Reproduction


Recommended Posts

Posted

In another thread (too political for my tastes) thesometimesaint made an interesting and true comment:

Seeing that God made both males and females there must have been some reason for that. Otherwise why not just go with asexual reproduction?

 

An answer? In your opinion, oh anonymous internet wayfarer, why in the Eternities has our species opted* to go with sexual reproduction? In other words, what do you suspect is the rationale behind the true statement from The Family: A Proclamation to the World, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

 

 

 

 

* I say opted because I rather suspect that in our most unformed/uncreate/initial state of intelligent matter that gender is not present -- that gender only comes into play when we are coupled with a spirit body (a vast gender lottery?). Mormon opinions on this matter will vary.

Posted

I believe the family unit is an eternal concept. It was not some whim that passed through God's mind as he created this mortal existence. It is this very truth that defies all other relationships that seek to imitate it and limits them to eternal sin. Man is not created to be in eternal partnership with man; it turns all of creation upside down; in a real sense it perverts the work of God completely.

 

Now, having said this I have no idea how or why this issue of SSA creeps into humanity. It may be that because we find some instances of it in the animal kingdom that it is part and parcel of the Fall.  Because it involves very real, deeply emotional sexual drives and personal relationships it exceeds the complexity of most of us to comprehend.  All I can say is that it exists and the laws of God exist; one must choose to follow God teachings or not. It is fundamental that discipleship is grown in the soil of self-sacrifice.  Each disciple must choose who they will follow the God of the eternities or the God of this world that is based completely in the belief that instant gratification is all the eternity in which we should occupy ourselves. 

Posted

I believe the family unit is an eternal concept. It was not some whim that passed through God's mind as he created this mortal existence. It is this very truth that defies all other relationships that seek to imitate it and limits them to eternal sin. Man is not created to be in eternal partnership with man; it turns all of creation upside down; in a real sense it perverts the work of God completely.

 

Now, having said this I have no idea how or why this issue of SSA creeps into humanity. It may be that because we find some instances of it in the animal kingdom that it is part and parcel of the Fall.  Because it involves very real, deeply emotional sexual drives and personal relationships it exceeds the complexity of most of us to comprehend.  All I can say is that it exists and the laws of God exist; one must choose to follow God teachings or not. It is fundamental that discipleship is grown in the soil of self-sacrifice.  Each disciple must choose who they will follow the God of the eternities or the God of this world that is based completely in the belief that instant gratification is all the eternity in which we should occupy ourselves. 

 

I don't believe it was a whim either. I'm just not too sure we even know to what extent God considers all of us part of his family, or what that family will look like in the eternities. IE; During the mortal life of Jesus family included not only parents and their children, but aunts, uncles, cousins, and various relations going back multiple generations. To give another example; My children now are married and have children of their own. Will they live with me under one mansion, so to speak, or will they establish their own mansions?

 

From my limited understand of SSA in humans it is a combination of genetic, and environmental factors that play together to form SSA. However I am certain that God takes EVERYTHING into consideration when we stand before him in judgement. That we'll be so happily surprised that we made it, that we won't worry about why someone else did too.

Posted

Most human attributes form along a rough Bell Curve. Tall to short, fat to thin, black to white, etc. Certain genetic combinations produce the Elephant Man ,Katherine Zeta Jones, or Rodney Dangerfield. Why would sexual attraction not be following the same form. We know the equipment does. There is an average +/- 2 SD where 95% of humanity lies. It is my hope that eternal reward and punishment considers that Bell curve of what you were handed in life.

Posted

In another thread (too political for my tastes) thesometimesaint made an interesting and true comment:

 

An answer? In your opinion, oh anonymous internet wayfarer, why in the Eternities has our species opted* to go with sexual reproduction? In other words, what do you suspect is the rationale behind the true statement from The Family: A Proclamation to the World, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

 

 

 

 

* I say opted because I rather suspect that in our most unformed/uncreate/initial state of intelligent matter that gender is not present -- that gender only comes into play when we are coupled with a spirit body (a vast gender lottery?). Mormon opinions on this matter will vary.

That sort of question can only be confronted by the likes of Isaac Asimov, a famous Science Fiction writer. When you bring those things into theology, it is like asking, "why do I not have two navels"?

Posted

Most human attributes form along a rough Bell Curve. Tall to short, fat to thin, black to white, etc. Certain genetic combinations produce the Elephant Man ,Katherine Zeta Jones, or Rodney Dangerfield. Why would sexual attraction not be following the same form. We know the equipment does. There is an average +/- 2 SD where 95% of humanity lies. It is my hope that eternal reward and punishment considers that Bell curve of what you were handed in life.

That is a refreshing statement.  I am waiting for such logic to trickle down to some of the social issues that people like to get ugly about.

Posted

That sort of question can only be confronted by the likes of Isaac Asimov, a famous Science Fiction writer. When you bring those things into theology, it is like asking, "why do I not have two navels"?

 

One to contemplate, and the other to pick the lint out of. :lol:

Posted

what do you suspect is the rationale behind the true statement from The Family: A Proclamation to the World, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

I think it has to do with the principle of opposition in all things: by design, two complimentary, opposing sexual cells combine to create a new cell which subsequently differentiates into a male or female. There you have "old" and "new" as well as "male" and "female," and where the old cells "die" as two "individuals" to bring forth new "life" as a "compound in one" you also have "death" and "life," "individuality" and "unity," and a "non-existing mortal" person (pre-fertilization) and an "existing mortal" person (post-fertilization).
Posted

In another thread (too political for my tastes) thesometimesaint made an interesting and true comment:

 

An answer? In your opinion, oh anonymous internet wayfarer, why in the Eternities has our species opted* to go with sexual reproduction? In other words, what do you suspect is the rationale behind the true statement from The Family: A Proclamation to the World, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

 

 

 

 

* I say opted because I rather suspect that in our most unformed/uncreate/initial state of intelligent matter that gender is not present -- that gender only comes into play when we are coupled with a spirit body (a vast gender lottery?). Mormon opinions on this matter will vary.

Gender in the physical sense yes, in the physiological rather. Or when formed God (our parents) assigned it as well. But I think the statement is being read also in a retroactive sort of way. Gender is essential "eternal" identity. With eternal there is a beginning but know end.
Posted

For me, the phrase "male and female" does not necessarily mean that God intended both genders of "man."  The phrase can also logically be read as simply a means to include both genders within the creation "man."

 

Consider, Genesis 5:1-2 (KJV) reads as follows (italics added):

This is the abook of the bgenerations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the clikeness of God dmade he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name aAdam, in the day when they were created.

 

Now, consider if the verse was written this way:

This is the abook of the bgenerations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the clikeness of God dmade he him; Black and white created he them; and blessed them, and called their name aAdam, in the day when they were created.

 

Or if it was written this way:

This is the abook of the bgenerations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the clikeness of God dmade he him; Bond and free created he them; and blessed them, and called their name aAdam, in the day when they were created.

 

In the latter two readings, it would not be necessary to assume that God intended man to be eternally stuck in one of the two specified circumstances.  The verses could be read as simply a way for God to show that all people are part of the creation of "man" regardless of their skin color or physical liberty.  Likewise, the phrase "male and female" can be read as a means to include all people within the creation of "man" regardless of their gender.  It does not have to be read to suggest that gender was intended by God, much less an eternal characteristic.

Posted

Gender in the physical sense yes, in the physiological rather. Or when formed God (our parents) assigned it as well. But I think the statement is being read also in a retroactive sort of way. Gender is essential "eternal" identity. With eternal there is a beginning but know end.

 

 I recall Joseph teaching that anything that has a beginning also has an end.  It's part of his ring analogy. 

Posted

I think it has to do with the principle of opposition in all things: by design, two complimentary, opposing sexual cells combine to create a new cell which subsequently differentiates into a male or female. There you have "old" and "new" as well as "male" and "female," and where the old cells "die" as two "individuals" to bring forth new "life" as a "compound in one" you also have "death" and "life," "individuality" and "unity," and a "non-existing mortal" person (pre-fertilization) and an "existing mortal" person (post-fertilization).

In nature, gender is actually a lot more fluid than angry Bible thumpers would like to make it seem. I think the Mormons do a lot better at contemplative theology than those in my past. I can not tell you how pleasant it is not to see Khrushchev like, shoe pounding messages from the pulpit any longer.  :)

Posted

 I recall Joseph teaching that anything that has a beginning also has an end.  It's part of his ring analogy. 

One of the most well received stories I ever wrote, called "Alien Investigators" (you can google it) had reptilian creatures in it that chose gender based upon which one wanted the baby, a variation on the idea "if you want a baby so bad, then you carry it".  They eventually become committed Mormons, and save human civilization, not that we deserve it. :)

Posted

In nature, gender is actually a lot more fluid than angry Bible thumpers would like to make it seem. I think the Mormons do a lot better at contemplative theology than those in my past. I can not tell you how pleasant it is not to see Khrushchev like, shoe pounding messages from the pulpit any longer.  :)

 

Just one of the advantages of continuing revelation.

Posted

Most human attributes form along a rough Bell Curve. Tall to short, fat to thin, black to white, etc. Certain genetic combinations produce the Elephant Man ,Katherine Zeta Jones, or Rodney Dangerfield. Why would sexual attraction not be following the same form. We know the equipment does. There is an average +/- 2 SD where 95% of humanity lies. It is my hope that eternal reward and punishment considers that Bell curve of what you were handed in life.

Both TSS and your comments....both so loving. This is somewhat my approach as well.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...