Where the Proclamation on the Family Jumps the Shark

[consiglieri]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The existence of a Heavenly Father as we doctrinally understand would mean that gender does have eternal significance.

But aren't we just getting back into the whole "sex is doctrine" idea?

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

To ask a related question, if my gender were removed but all other characteristics about me remained the same, how would my purpose have changed?

 

Sorry about my previous post, but for some reason the board would not let me type anything and it wouldn't let me delete it or start over, even if i tried to leave the thread and come back, so i was forced to post it.

Anyway, If the whole purpose of the plan of salvation is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", and if eternal life involves eternal marriage and eternal increase (as mormon doctrine teaches it is), then without your gender it would be impossible for you to gain eternal life, and thus, God's purpose for creating you (and your purpose for going thru all of this) would be thwarted.

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

I think the plan of salvation makes no sense if gender is not an essential characteristic of our eternal life.

 

This is key, Avatar.

Because the way modern Mormon Doctrine has been formulated, the entire plan of salvation is based upon the cornerstone of the heterosexual procreative act.

I think it is important to recognize this fact in order to help understand not only why this sentence from the Proclamation is there, but also why it is wrong.

[consiglieri]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think that good faith discussions of LDS doctrine are not really possible where you initiate a thread with a slur against our beliefs ("jumps the shark" indeed).

In the absence of a good faith effort to discuss such sacred things, I will refrain from substantive participation.

Thanks,

-Smac

LOL!

You sure got thin-skinned in the last five-years, Smac! 

Why do you think the Proclamation is such a sacred thing?

Elder Packer called it "scripture" in GC, but that was removed in the printed version.

So apparently the powers that be (i.e., somebody who "handles" the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles) thought that particular statement needed to be walked back, and not accorded so sacred an appellation as "scripture."

Hope you are doing well, Smac!

 

[consiglieri]

10 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

#1 is wrong

 

Let's start here.

If #1 is wrong, then I'm sure you can show me some scriptural or revelatory basis for the proposition that gender is an essential attribute of our premortal character and identity.

Consider this a CFR.

Thanks in advance.

 

[CA Steve]

Consiglieri,

 

This may sound like a weird request but maybe you could define what you think gender means and, if you think it is used in the proclamation  the same way. If not,  then how do you think it is being used in the proclamation?

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

To ask a related question, if my gender were removed but all other characteristics about me remained the same, how would my purpose have changed?

I think there’s enough scriptural indication that we have spiritual as well as biological gender. Our spirt and element become “separably” connected in mortality, and then resume their union as an inseparably connected soul in the resurrected state, where we appear as we did in the flesh, but physically whole and where the “fulness of joy” is experienced (“fullness” being all the glory one is willing to receive, including the continuation of the seeds).

Spiritual gender was established in the pre-existence according to the various scriptures I posted above (Moses 3:5-7, Gen. 1: 27, Gen. 5: 2, D&C 20: 18, Moses 2: 27, Moses 6: 9), and our spiritual appearance corresponds to our physical body (1 Nephi 11:11; Ether 3:15–16).

It may seem odd to think of a spirit possessing sexual structures, but the purpose of spiritual gender, as any other human attribute, would be to prepare a child of Heavenly Parents for what to expect in mortality and beyond, especially after realizing his Parents are also of distinct genders.

So I do not think we would be the same person without our gender any more than we would be the same person without any of our other human states of being. I think it has been well-established that human appearance affects the development of personality and social relations (and therefore purpose), so a change in appearance would change our “sociality,” and thus it stands to reason that LDS beliefs support gender for both the spirit and physical worlds.

[Rain]

36 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Thanks, Ahab!

But if my gender were removed but all other characteristics about me remained the same, would I not still be me?

In other words, would my identity have fundamentally changed?

If not, how can we hold that gender is an essential characteristic of identity in the here and now?

Not to mention in the there and then?

I don't know about you, but MY identity would be fundamentally changed.  I am just now beginning to understand who I am because of pondering my femaleness.  I cannot even describe it at this point, but there is power in me being female just as there is power in men being male, but it isn't the same.   My very strong feelings are that it would totally change my purpose to become gender neutral.    

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

To ask a related question, if my gender were removed but all other characteristics about me remained the same, how would my purpose have changed?

I believe it would not have changed at all, except in respect to one thing only--the ability to have procreative sexual relations.

If this is correct, this statement in the Proclamation suggests that our fundamental "purpose" is to have procreative sexual relations.

Not only in the here and now, but also in the eternities.

And for some reason, even back into the premortal existence.

To me, it is a mass of confusion.

Not to mention demeaning of the qualities in men and women superior than just their ability to make babies.

I don't see it that way at all.

About the highest joy in life is seeing your grandbabies.  If one of the mandates is to "have joy" I can't imagine banning reproduction.  And yes of course they could be adopted etc, but the point is that that the drive to know that joy is within us- the people who fill that function do not have to have our DNA.  But why is that joy there in the first place?  Because it has evolved.  Survival value.  The purpose of every species is reproduction or guess what?  No species exists, no purposes. Another way to say that is that God has put that into us.  For me they are indistinguishable.  Have we evolved God or has he evolved us?  It doesn't much matter.  It's two sides of the same coin. 

Yes " our fundamental "purpose" is to have procreative sexual relations."

Gender is a strong part of who we are as people

The word "gender" makes part of what it is to be you into an abstraction.  It is invented.  It's like transubstantiation- just change the "appearance" of bread into flesh, and retain it's "substance".  So now bread is the flesh of Christ.  Easy swap.  Just swap the appearances and keep the substance, right?

 All that actual gender change would involve is tweaks in your brain, total hormonal switiching, swapping genitals and how they function and your DNA, and heck yeah, you would not have changed at all.  New brain, new DNA, new hormones, new genitals, new way of seeing the world, but the same old "self".    I don't see that at all.   If I get a headache someone might say "You don't seem yourself today", and we are going to change all that and still have the same "self"- the same "person?"

Just like swapping those bread atoms for flesh atoms to change "appearances".  Same stuff, different appearances?

I don't think it's possible to change your "gender" without changing your "self" and "who you are".  I think "Gender" change is the new theory of substance vs appearances.  It's the new transubstantiation and has all the same errors logically.

One of the purposes of mankind is definitely reproduction. I think it is safe to say that one of the purposes of mankind is to keep it in existence.  We worry about other species going extinct, but we don't worry about US going extinct?

Sexual reproduction may not be a particular individual's "purpose" in life, but overall it certainly is for mankind.  I cannot imagine saying that mankind going extinct IS its purpose any more than saying that reproduction is NOT part of the purposes of mankind.  You can't have it both ways

[mfbukowski]

28 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Let's start here.

If #1 is wrong, then I'm sure you can show me some scriptural or revelatory basis for the proposition that gender is an essential attribute of our premortal character and identity.

Consider this a CFR.

Thanks in advance.

 

Circular.   All he has to do is cite the Proclamation.  I regard it as revelatory and doctrinal because I have a "testimony" of that.  Were I given that CFR that would be my reply.  So neener neener. 

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, consiglieri said:

There is a jarring sentence in the 1995 Proclamation to the World on the Family:

There is no scriptural or revelatory basis for this statement, to my knowledge.

I believe that gender is not an essential characteristic of mortal identity and purpose.

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

And, perhaps most importantly, we have absolutely no knowledge on the subject relating to gender being an essential characteristic of individual premortal identity and purpose.

Here is where I think the Proclamation goes too far, doctrinally speaking.

What do you think?

I am trying to figure out the problem here.

It purports to be revelatory on its face.  What's the point?

You may disagree with it- fine- but certainly within an LDS context there's no internal inconsistency.  To me that's like asking for a scriptural basis for continuing revelation itself.  That goes back to Joseph Smith where he simply declares it happens.

Either you accept that or not.  It's kind of a bootstrapping thing.  Joseph declares a new revelation- the church.  The church declares a clarification of what has been believed.

What's the problem?  Why does it need the justification you are proposing it needs?

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The existence of a Heavenly Father as we doctrinally understand would mean that gender does have eternal significance.

 

Not for me. Heavenly Father's role and example do not depend one iota on his body parts. Consider the following. What if it turns out that HF has 12 fingers instead of 10. Would you worship Him any less or reject His plan just because you'd always believed He had 10? Probably not. Okay, now continue with the hypotheticals. Suppose that He is 12 feet tall. Or that He has orange hair. Or that He three eyes. At what point does His physical appearance undermine the plan of salvation for you? And why?

For me, the "image of Christ" has nothing to do with body parts. It's entirely due to non-physical attributes and behaviors (charity, brotherly kindness, honesty, etc.). Those are the ways in which we must be "like him." And that's why I do not believe gender has any real function in the plan. Women can become like Christ to the same degree that men can. And men and women - once they become like Christ - can fully understand each other's experiences. There is no difference between the genders once we all become like Christ. Gender is just another "ite" that gets eroded on our way to Zion. That's why Christ never taught gender differences. They're not part of His gospel.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Buckeye

[Guest]

To the OP...

The fact that this statement appears in a proclamation signed by all the Apostles, makes it a Spiritual and Revealatory statement. If we believe our own doctrine as to what "doctrine" is, this mess every standard. I think that the statement "hooks the shark". Well, I know it does.

[consiglieri]

52 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Anyway, If the whole purpose of the plan of salvation is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", and if eternal life involves eternal marriage and eternal increase (as mormon doctrine teaches it is), then without your gender it would be impossible for you to gain eternal life, and thus, God's purpose for creating you (and your purpose for going thru all of this) would be thwarted.

I appreciate your comments.

Let me respond in this way, Bluebell.

It is the nature of humanity to take the things they believe are sacred and then project those beliefs onto God and into heaven.

If we believe warfare is sacred and/or admirable, we will make God into a heavenly warrior.  (Much of this can be seen in the Old Testament.)

We can also see this same type of thing at work in Mormonism.

In the 19th century, when plural marriage was taught to be essential to salvation, we find Church leaders teaching a number of things in this regard that we might look askance at today.

Examples include:

1. Brigham Young's teaching that Adam (God) came to Mary and had sexual relations with her in order to procreate the mortal body of Jesus.

2. Other Church leaders taught that it was Jesus who was getting married in the story of the wedding at Cana.

3. Still other Church leaders taught that Mary and Martha were plural wives of Jesus.

Although we might think some or all of these to be less than sound ideas, today, they are excellent examples of what I am talking about--people taking what they think is sacred in the here and now and projecting it onto God and into Heaven.

Now we come to the idea that spirit babies are procreated by heterosexual activity between resurrected and exalted beings.

Not only is this concept without scriptural foundation, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism correctly stated that there is no revelatory basis for such an idea.

Indeed, a little thought would demonstrate we should seriously question such a proposition.

What is the population of the earth right now?

7.3 billion.

And that is just this earth.

And just those living right now (or at least as of July, 2015).

Let me write that number out.  7.3 billion is 7,300,000,000 people.

Mormonism teaches that all of these people were spirit beings before coming to this earth.

How were they created?

Are we really to believe that just the people alive on planet Earth right now are the result of 7,300,000,000 separate instances of sexual activity, for all of which Heavenly Father was involved?

And the total number of people who have ever lived on this planet is estimated to be 107 billion; or 107,000,000,000.

Should we think that all these people were begotten by the procreative sex?

It seems unlikely, to say the least.

And so I suggest that our view that the way babies are created on earth may not be the way babies are created in heaven.

The same way that 19th century Church leaders attributing plural wives to God (and Jesus!) were almost certainly wrong.

And if spirits are not created in the premortal existence by means of the sex act, we can envision ways in which those premortal spirits had nothing about them relating to gender.

In fact, and I don't want to go too deep into this all at once, Joseph Smith's final word on the subject was that spirits are not created at all, but have always existed.  There is no creation about them.

Just some thoughts to let you know some of why I view things the way I do.

[Buckeye]

38 minutes ago, Rain said:

I don't know about you, but MY identity would be fundamentally changed.  I am just now beginning to understand who I am because of pondering my femaleness.  I cannot even describe it at this point, but there is power in me being female just as there is power in men being male, but it isn't the same.   My very strong feelings are that it would totally change my purpose to become gender neutral.    

Can Christ fully understand your femininity? Can He understand pregnancy, menopause, menstruation and all the other physical ways in which women are different from men? If not, the scriptures are in error when they say He has all power to succor His children. If so, then the next question is this: can men fully become as Christ? Again, the scriptures appear to say yes. But that would mean that men can eventually come to understand fully the female condition. 

Christ's gender is the ultimate downfall to gender essentialisms. Christ is the savior for all. Yet he is male. So therefore his maleness is not part of the salvation he brings. It's just another irrelevant attribute from his mortality - like his language, skin color, hair color, and so forth. 

[consiglieri]

22 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

It purports to be revelatory on its face. 

 

It is possible I am missing something here, mfb.

Where in the Proclamation does it "purport to be revelatory on its face"?

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Sorry about my previous post, but for some reason the board would not let me type anything and it wouldn't let me delete it or start over, even if i tried to leave the thread and come back, so i was forced to post it.

Anyway, If the whole purpose of the plan of salvation is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man", and if eternal life involves eternal marriage and eternal increase (as mormon doctrine teaches it is), then without your gender it would be impossible for you to gain eternal life, and thus, God's purpose for creating you (and your purpose for going thru all of this) would be thwarted.

 

Unless "increase" is not dependent on sex. Joseph's King Follett discourse gives great hope to the notion that God's fatherhood is a function of his providing example and sacrifice for us, not because he had sex once upon a time. That's how I view parenthood - both mortal and eternal. My parents are my parents because they have given their time, talents, and live to help me become like them. If it turns out that I was swapped in the hospital - and so my existence is not due to their having sex at some time - that revelation would in no wise undermine their parenthood. 

Let me ask this. Are adopted children "increase"? The church seals adoptive children and parents even though they have no biological connection. And that sealing creates an internal family - an increase. So how can sex be a requirement for eternal increase if it's not even a requirement for sealings that we do right now?

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 

Unless "increase" is not dependent on sex. Joseph's King Follett discourse gives great hope to the notion that God's fatherhood is a function of his providing example and sacrifice for us, not because he had sex once upon a time. That's how I view parenthood - both mortal and eternal. My parents are my parents because they have given their time, talents, and live to help me become like them. If it turns out that I was swapped in the hospital - and so my existence is not due to their having sex at some time - that revelation would in no wise undermine their parenthood. 

Let me ask this. Are adopted children "increase"? The church seals adoptive children and parents even though they have no biological connection. And that sealing creates an internal family - an increase. So how can sex be a requirement for eternal increase if it's not even a requirement for sealings that we do right now?

LDS doctrine says we've always existed, and were organized from intelligences into spirits. So sexual reproduction in the preexistence doesn't really make sense.

Edited December 16, 2015 by Gray

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Maybe an explanation of how I see the structure of all this might help people understand where I'm coming from and why I have deep problems with some of the statements in the Proclamation. (This is all speculative science fiction, but that's all anyone's view on this stuff is, in the end.)  

Joseph Smith taught that Intelligence -- "the mind of man[kind]" -- is uncreated. That it is immortal, and that we -- that is, our "minds" -- exist now (and always have existed in some form) on the exact same principles as any other self-existing God. There was no "creation" about it, and all Intelligences are coequal and coeternal. The idea that the most fundamental part of our existence and perception cannot be created or destroyed has, potentially, immense explanatory power. 

We have to recognize, tho, that we have absolutely no idea of what an "Intelligence/mind/spirit" actually is. No one around here has seen one. We currently have no scientific evidence that they exist at all. If they do exist, they exist at a level of matter that we are simply incapable of detecting with our current perceptions and technology. I have to treat them as a hypothesis - what is important is the idea that they are still, like everything else that exists, a form of "matter" - they are not "supernatural", and in principle that discrete little awareness could be observable someday. Maybe this is just semantics, but I think the implied naturalism is important - they should not be understood as something separate from the natural world. 

This is a sort of "dualism" in the sense that the "Intelligence" can exist separate from the brain, but it is emphatically not dualism in the sense that most people understand and use the term, referring to an immaterial supernatural realm splitting non-physical mind from matter, God from Creation, making a vast gulf between ontologically separate categories. Traditional theology gets mad at us for denying the existence of immaterialism and the supernatural; current science gets mad at us because we haven't yet proved that this hypothetical entity exists, even if it might be very slightly more palatable than some 'spiritual' ideas because we describe all spirit as 'material'. (Hey, they observed the effects of pulsars before they were confirmed, it's not entirely wacko.)

Now. This is difficult to describe, but the way I personally picture an "Intelligence", I see it as a tiny spark of light, a spot of pure awareness flying around. It has no "body", it's just a little spark flying between atoms in the quantum foam or whatever. In order to act on a larger stage, this little spark of intelligence needs to be empowered by being bound with a body. The scriptures are ambiguous, here; I think whether our "spirit body" exists in the tripartite model we now have [after, note, a period of theological development] is unclear, but even if it does exist, it is still only another layer of the onion formed around that bodiless spark of mind/intelligence that Joseph taught of.  

I think our evolved mammalian primate gendered bodies are deeply important and beautiful - the most miraculous things in existence. We definitely should not minimize in the slightest the profound effects embodiment has on our awareness and perception of ourselves and how we interact with others. I think the way our species has evolved to procreate and reaffirm emotional bonds through sexual intimacy is indescribably amazing. Intimacy and pregnancy and birth and family are utterly, indescribably sacred to me, and I hope they all continue after this life. Male and female and intersex bodies are so deeply amazing we should be in absolute awe of absolutely everyone. But I don't believe that the physical morphology of the bodies our awarenesses inhabit and bind with are intrinsic parts of our being. 

That is, if I exist fundamentally as an "Intelligence", that uncreated spark of light, then conceivably I could inhabit either a male, female, or intersex body. Because every body has different inborn hungers as far as attraction goes, if my uncreated awareness was bound with a heterosexual female body, I would feel attracted to males. If it inhabited a homosexual body, I would feel attracted to people of the same gender. If it became one with a bi- or pan- sexual body, I would feel attracted to people of either or any gender. 

Because my Intelligence is bound together with a heterosexual male body [perhaps including a male "spirit body" wrapped as a garment of light around my uncreated Intelligence], I am attracted to women. I deeply enjoy being a heterosexual male, and I think it is a profoundly meaningful and beautiful experience; at the same time, I can't see how it would be any less profound and meaningful and beautiful to be a female, or an intersex individual, or homosexual or bisexual. Just because, in this body, I feel no sexual attraction to members of my same gender or intersex individuals, doesn't mean I am incapable of imagining what it might be like to experience inhabiting a body which does have those hungers. It seems logical to me that the way I feel about my girlfriend might be comparable to the way that a lesbian feels about hers.   

Why, then, if invitro fertilization and surrogacy exists, and infertile heterosexual couples can take part in non-procreative intimacy, should homosexuals be barred from intimacy with members of the same gender? Why should they not form families and adopt? For that matter, why shouldn't polygyny or polyandry be legal? As long as people are of legal age, old enough to understand what is happening and communicate their will, and are not pressured in any way, then consent with each other and care for young ones become the prime issues. 

I am "obsessed" with Heavenly Mother because I have a girlfriend and sisters and a mom, and most of traditional religion and philosophy for thousands of years has condemned their femininity as, essentially, the root of all evil. We desperately need to change that, and I'm doing what I can. The traditional interpretation of Eve and the Fall and sex and so many other aspects of life is so awful and pervasive that I think it's deeply important to recognize female divinity right alongside the males. Truth is reason; truth eternal tells me that if there are Fathers in heaven, there must be Mothers as well. If we believe that all people have the spark of coequal divinity within them and all might be exalted, I think other traditions also have much truth we could learn about intersex divinities right alongside the divine masculine and feminine. But their body and gender (beautiful and empowering and amazing as they are) are not, ultimately, the essential characteristic of the individual; their awareness, their Intelligence, their subjective perception is. They all choose to be compassionate towards others, using their bodies of whatever gender to do so, so that all people who exist might have joy. 

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

Should we think that all these people were begotten by the procreative sex?

***

In fact, and I don't want to go too deep into this all at once, Joseph Smith's final word on the subject was that spirits are not created at all, but have always existed.  There is no creation about them.

While one can envision a premortal spirit without gender, there is a sound basis for the Proclamation that a premortal spirit possesses gender quality (see posts in Where the Proclamation on the Family Jumps the Shark ).

Joseph Smith (April 1844 / History of the Church, 6:310–12): “Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.” As discussed in the other thread, gender is part of the self-existing principle as evidenced by its role in defining the mind and spirit, and thus one’s self-identity and identity among the larger group.

He also said, "God himself, finding he [gender identification!] was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself." While it doesn't say "procreate", the spirits got there somehow-- the continuation of the seeds having something to do with it, for he is advanced and we are to advance like Himself through marriage-- and the institution of laws does at least convey "organize" the children of God. And advancing  like Him would involve a gender attribute (however that gets passed along from estate to estate from the non-created spirit), and the continuation of the seeds (however an exalted Couple could be envisioned to accomplish that).

[CA Steve]

What gender are hermaphrodites?

[ksfisher]

17 hours ago, consiglieri said:

.

Most Mormons believe that for the vast majority, gender will not be an essential characteristic of eternal identity and purpose.

 

This jarring sentence is where the OP, for me, jumps the shark.  I would like to see some evidence to back up this assertion.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Although we might think some or all of these to be less than sound ideas, today, they are excellent examples of what I am talking about--people taking what they think is sacred in the here and now and projecting it onto God and into Heaven.

I'm not sure that you have at all proven your point.  These are all examples of people taking their own ideas (true or not) and interpreting doctrine using them.  As far as i can tell, it's the same exact thing that you are doing in this thread (the same exact thing we all do).  It seems like you are using your beliefs to interpret LDS doctrine and to explain why other people's interpretation of LDS doctrine are obviously wrong.

Or have i misunderstood you (a very likely possibility)?

Quote

 

Now we come to the idea that spirit babies are procreated by heterosexual activity between resurrected and exalted beings.

Let me write that number out.  7.3 billion is 7,300,000,000 people.

Mormonism teaches that all of these people were spirit beings before coming to this earth.

How were they created?

Are we really to believe that just the people alive on planet Earth right now are the result of 7,300,000,000 separate instances of sexual activity, for all of which Heavenly Father was involved?

 

I don't think that the quote in the proclamation implies that this is how the spirits were created, but neither do i see the idea as so preposterous that it's obviously false.  Why can't we really believe the bolded line?  You haven't given me any reason to think it's absurd, other than that it's absurd from a mortal human perspective (which is already a strike against your conclusion since we're not talking about mortals or humans).

Quote

 

And the total number of people who have ever lived on this planet is estimated to be 107 billion; or 107,000,000,000.

Should we think that all these people were begotten by the procreative sex?

It seems unlikely, to say the least.

 

I don't personally believe so, neither do i believe this is what the proclamation is teaching, but again, i don't see that you've provided any reason for it to be unlikely.  Can you explain exactly why it would be unlikely for a God to procreate in such a way?  Anything scriptural to back up the assertion?  

You've said that the proclamation jumped ship when it try to teaching something as fact that not's supported by scripture.  It seems like you are doing the same thing here-teaching that something is absurd without anything authoritative to back up the teaching.

But i really could be misunderstanding what you are saying.  It certainly wouldn't be the first time i was confused.

Quote

And so I suggest that our view that the way babies are created on earth may not be the way babies are created in heaven.

I completely agree.  As far as i can tell, the proclamation is silent on how babies are created.  The scriptures are as well, other than teaching that a male and female sealed together is needed.

Quote

The same way that 19th century Church leaders attributing plural wives to God (and Jesus!) were almost certainly wrong.

Can i see some references on why it's almost certainly wrong.  Not a snarky request, i just am really interested in where your beliefs on this point stem from.  

Quote

And if spirits are not created in the premortal existence by means of the sex act, we can envision ways in which those premortal spirits had nothing about them relating to gender.

Certainly.  We can envision lots of stuff (the three examples from the past you used cited are just people envisioning things based on their beliefs), but as you said earlier, being able to envision something has no impact on whether or not it's actually true.

The question is, do such envisioned ways match other doctrine on the subject?  I personally don't believe that any envisioned way of created spirits without gender is compatible with other scripture.  A male and female sealed together is the only way (as far as scripture teaches) that spirits can be brought into existence.  However it happens, those two ingredients are, again as far as scripture says, necessary for the recipe to work.

Edited December 16, 2015 by bluebell

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This jarring sentence is where the OP, for me, jumps the shark.  I would like to see some evidence to back up this assertion.

Agreed.  Where is the data?  I know of not a single person who does NOT believe this.  Not one, honestly.

If you did not believe that, why be a Mormon??

This belief goes back to old testament times and appears throughout the restoration.  The very title "Heavenly Father" indicates that God is a "Father".  The hymn Oh my Father indicates "I have a Mother there".  King Follette Discourse.  Adam God Theory.

Gendered gods are what makes the gospel what it is and totally unique.  Without that, we are Methodists. It is hardly the case that the idea of gendered Gods was a change in Mormonism caused by the Proclamation.  It has ALWAYS been there.

The Hebrew word "Eloheim" in the first line in the bible indicates male and female.  "Make man in OUR own image"..."Male and female created He them...."

I guess God jumped the shark in Genesis chapter 1.

After that, it has been downhill ever since. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

I am "obsessed" with Heavenly Mother because I have a girlfriend and sisters and a mom, and most of traditional religion and philosophy for thousands of years has condemned their femininity as, essentially, the root of all evil. We desperately need to change that, and I'm doing what I can. The traditional interpretation of Eve and the Fall and sex and so many other aspects of life is so awful and pervasive that I think it's deeply important to recognize female divinity right alongside the males. Truth is reason; truth eternal tells me that if there are Fathers in heaven, there must be Mothers as well. If we believe that all people have the spark of coequal divinity within them and all might be exalted, I think other traditions also have much truth we could learn about intersex divinities right alongside the divine masculine and feminine. But their body and gender (beautiful and empowering and amazing as they are) are not, ultimately, the essential characteristic of the individual; their awareness, their Intelligence, their subjective perception is. They all choose to be compassionate towards others, using their bodies of whatever gender to do so, so that all people who exist might have joy. 

It is good to know that you think gender is a major part of who these wonderful people are

To affirm women one must affirm gender.  Women are not men.

All people would not exist at all without mommies and daddies.  I learned that one a while back

Edited December 16, 2015 by mfbukowski
I misread the original statement