consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 23 minutes ago, rongo said: Your prooftexting using Joseph Fielding Smith notwithstanding, If you mean I am quoting a text from Joseph Fielding Smith to prove my point, then you are right. And it does prove my point. Did you miss the part where he said that all non-exalted beings in the eternities will be "neither man nor woman"? According to JFS, then, the vast majority of resurrected beings will not have gender at all, much less have gender as an essential attribute. Contrary to the Proclamation.
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 12 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This is what I meant when I said that the vast majority of resurrected beings from this earth will not have gender as an essential attribute in the eternities. Why does the Proclamation seemingly contradict Joseph Fielding Smith's teachings in this regard? That is what I wonder. Because being unable to procreate does not equal being genderless. There are people on earth right now --- mortals --- who are unable to procreate. They are not genderless because of this. The Proclamation seemingly (good word, that) contradicts President Smith's teachings in this regard because of your zeal to misapprehend both. There. That was easy. 1
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 11 minutes ago, consiglieri said: According to JFS, then, the vast majority of resurrected beings will not have gender at all, much less have gender as an essential attribute. How does this equal most members sharing this view? Can you find a second data point, other than this anomalous JFS quote? Since this is so well-established and ubiquitous?
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 5 minutes ago, rongo said: How does this equal most members sharing this view? Can you find a second data point, other than this anomalous JFS quote? Since this is so well-established and ubiquitous? I already amended my statement to say that most members who have thoughts on the issue share this view. It is anecdotal. I can't give you a citation. But while we're on the subject, what do you think? Do you agree with Joseph Fielding Smith on this issue, or do you agree with the Proclamation?
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 8 minutes ago, rongo said: Because being unable to procreate does not equal being genderless. There are people on earth right now --- mortals --- who are unable to procreate. They are not genderless because of this. The Proclamation seemingly (good word, that) contradicts President Smith's teachings in this regard because of your zeal to misapprehend both. There. That was easy. You're dodging. Joseph Fielding Smith said they will be "neither man nor woman." How do you understand that to be anything other than genderless?
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) 4 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I already amended my statement to say that most members who have thoughts on the issue share this view. Most members "who have thoughts on this issue" agree with you. In other words ---- the deep thinkers, not the knuckle-dragging unibrows. Quote It is anecdotal. I can't give you a citation. And we know that. Which is why we goaded you about it, and finally elicited a reluctant caveat. Quote But while we're on the subject, what do you think? Do you agree with Joseph Fielding Smith on this issue, or do you agree with the Proclamation? I agree with the Proclamation, and disagree with your interpretation of what he said. And I'm confident that the vast majority of members agree with me. Even the thinking ones . . . But, even if those were his views, it wouldn't be the first time I disagreed doctrinally with JFS or BRM. Edited December 17, 2015 by rongo ETA 1
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 5 minutes ago, consiglieri said: You're dodging. Joseph Fielding Smith said they will be "neither man nor woman." How do you understand that to be anything other than genderless? As a previous poster said, one way to look at that would be that those unable to procreate eternally due to their degree of glory could be considered to be not fully man or woman in the same sense that those who have a fullness do. I don't have any need to explain away what he wrote. If he meant it the way you interpret it, I disagree with him. And I'm confident most members (even the thinking ones!) do as well.
CV75 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: According to JFS, then, the vast majority of resurrected beings will not have gender at all, much less have gender as an essential attribute. According to D&C 76, both the inhabitants of the celestial and telestial worlds are "innumerable," leaving no room for "majority" anywhere, although I think the Lord would think that even one lost soul is too many.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, rongo said: But, even if those were his views, it wouldn't be the first time I disagreed doctrinally with JFS or BRM. On what objective basis can we privilege Joseph Fielding Smith over Thomas S. Monson in regard to this doctrine?
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 4 minutes ago, CV75 said: According to D&C 76, both the inhabitants of the celestial and telestial worlds are "innumerable," leaving no room for "majority" anywhere, although I think the Lord would think that even one lost soul is too many. Maybe if the lost soul is "neither man nor woman," it isn't so bad.
CV75 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) 51 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Maybe if the lost soul is "neither man nor woman," it isn't so bad. LOL that would only make things worse! As far as mortality goes, I can see where someone could be a little of both (which would be sorted out and corrected in the resurrection, when the spirit and body take on their united, perfect form), but I think it's impossible to be physically / biologically / naturally genderless. That is why I take the Smith quote to refer to the ability or permission to procreate rather than to physical genderlessness. Edited December 17, 2015 by CV75
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 16 minutes ago, CV75 said: LOL that would only make things worse! As far as mortality goes, I can see where someone could be a little of both (which would be sorted out and corrected in the resurrection, when the spirit and body take on their united, perfect form), but I think it's impossible to be physically / biologically / naturally genderless. That is why I take the Smith quote to refer to the ability or permission to procreate rather than to physical genderlessness. Are you aware that this teaching is prevalent enough among Church members to have produced the somewhat derogatory term, "Barbie smoothie"?
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 The ignorance of basic biology among church members (and, heck, the general population) is pretty appalling. Let's all take the day off from the boards and read, say, the Wikipedia entry on Intersex, at the very least.
Lachoneus Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: On what objective basis can we privilege Joseph Fielding Smith over Thomas S. Monson in regard to this doctrine? (1) Thomas S. Monson is the living prophet today. In his Fourteen Points, President Ezra Taft Benson said, "The living prophet is more vital to us than the Standard Works." (2) Joseph Fielding Smith is dead. President Benson also said, "The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet." (3) What President Smith needs to be understood properly. President Smith said, "Some of the functions in the celestial body will not appear in the terrestrial body, neither in the telestial body, and the power of procreation will be removed. I take it that men and women will, in these kingdoms, be just what the so-called Christian world expects us all to be to be, neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection." Notice that President Smith says it is "men and women" who will be "merely beings having received the resurrection" because "the functions" of their less than celestial bodies (not certain parts of those bodies) "will not appear." One of these lost functions will be "the power of procreation" because it "will be removed." He says nothing about these persons losing body parts, or any other distinguishing features, only the lost of bodily "functions." The description of the telestial and terrestial beings as "neither man nor woman" is a description he quotes from "the so-called Christian world," not something President Smith used himself. For himself, he describes these individuals as "men and woman," only without the power of procreation. (4) Read James E. Talmage's "The Eternity of Sex." 25 The Young Woman's Journal (#10) 600-604 (October 1914). Edited December 17, 2015 by Lachoneus correction 1
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) ^^^^^^ That's what I meant by prooftexting, consiglieri. Do you cry uncle on other sources where GAs say that lower kingdoms are genderless? Edited December 17, 2015 by rongo
Ahab Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 Celestial castration, basically. Like when a man has his testicle strings snipped or a woman has her tubes tied. Still having the outward parts and still able to have sexual relations but with no danger/ability of the woman becoming pregnant or the man impregnating the woman. But we as mortals don't create the spirits of our children, anyway. Each one of us here is a spirit child of celestial parents and none of us now has the ability to beget spirit children while we are still imperfect as mortals.
KevinG Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Are you aware that this teaching is prevalent enough among Church members to have produced the somewhat derogatory term, "Barbie smoothie"? The term is apparently not popular enough to ping a Google search. Other than this gem: http://www.toysrus.com.au/www/732/files/16265_barbie_dollicious_coffee_n_smoothie_shop_1_.jpg I think you are perhaps overstating the popularity and frequency of the belief some Mormon's may have in genderlessness in the eternities. Which also makes me pause at many of your other claims.
Zakuska Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 1 minute ago, Ahab said: Celestial castration, basically. Like when a man has his testicle strings snipped or a woman has her tubes tied. Still having the outward parts and still able to have sexual relations but with no danger/ability of the woman becoming pregnant or the man impregnating the woman. But we as mortals don't create the spirits of our children, anyway. Each one of us here is a spirit child of celestial parents and none of us now has the ability to beget spirit children while we are still imperfect as mortals. Like thats going to fly... Deut 23 1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
ttribe Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 11 minutes ago, KevinG said: The term is apparently not popular enough to ping a Google search. Other than this gem: http://www.toysrus.com.au/www/732/files/16265_barbie_dollicious_coffee_n_smoothie_shop_1_.jpg I think you are perhaps overstating the popularity and frequency of the belief some Mormon's may have in genderlessness in the eternities. Which also makes me pause at many of your other claims. Try "TK Smoothie"...you'll have more success.
CV75 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 57 minutes ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said: The ignorance of basic biology among church members (and, heck, the general population) is pretty appalling. Let's all take the day off from the boards and read, say, the Wikipedia entry on Intersex, at the very least. Such articles, in my view, support the idea that intersexed is not "genderless."
Calm Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) 2 hours ago, consiglieri said: On what objective basis can we privilege Joseph Fielding Smith over Thomas S. Monson in regard to this doctrine? If it was repeated taught in the last 50 years in church manuals perhaps, but the quote you referenced was written iirc about 25 years prior to JFS becoming president of the Church, so I think it would be quite inappropriate to weight his comments at that time over what a president states or what a living apostle teaches that is backed up with multiple references by other general authorities. Googling does not yield any hits on lds.org for me, which would include the JFS manual that would contain teachings that leaders have chosen as consistent with teaching the Gospel. If this one isn't there, that should give one pause as to whether that was a personal belief he shared or revelation. Edited December 17, 2015 by Calm 1
Ahab Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 17 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Like thats going to fly... Deut 23 1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD. I said like that. The men will still look like men and the women will still look like women, externally, but they will not be able to reproduce themselves as spirit children just like most Christians don't believe they will. No (celestial) babies for them!
CV75 Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: Are you aware that this teaching is prevalent enough among Church members to have produced the somewhat derogatory term, "Barbie smoothie"? I've only heard a similar term once before, a few years ago, on this board. I can't imagine an added-upon body having any of its eternally-defining characteristics removed or imperfectly restored in the resurrection; that wouldn't constitute salvation even in the lowest kingdom of glory. P.S. Personally, I only use natural ingredients in my smoothies, which is a misnomer since they turn out a bit chunky.
Calm Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) 28 minutes ago, KevinG said: The term is apparently not popular enough to ping a Google search. Other than this gem: http://www.toysrus.com.au/www/732/files/16265_barbie_dollicious_coffee_n_smoothie_shop_1_.jpg I think you are perhaps overstating the popularity and frequency of the belief some Mormon's may have in genderlessness in the eternities. Which also makes me pause at many of your other claims. Even if use of the term is a popular comment, it hardly means it is a popular belief. People may be mentioning it and using the derogatory label because they dismiss its validity, not because they accept it as revelation or even reasonable speculation. Edited December 17, 2015 by Calm
Recommended Posts