Where the Proclamation on the Family Jumps the Shark

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

God thinks they cannot be trusted with the responsibility of parenthood. This does not mean they would have polluted the gene pool which suggests that their inferior genetics make them doomed to extinction. This also brings up the question? Do exalted bodies even have genes to have a corrupted gene pool?

Gosh I don't know, I'm a carpenter. We cut the bad lumber up for blocks. If we don't need anymore blocks it get's burned up as firewood. My statement on polluting the gene pool was metaphorical.

Edited December 21, 2015 by rodheadlee
for clarity

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2015 at 10:13 AM, rodheadlee said:

I don't normally quote myself but I thought it important to realize that Church works the same way. No matter how many times I show up to Church, no matter how much I believe that Jesus is the Christ and that the Church is His Church they are NOT going to give me a TR until I conquer nicotine addiction. Why should  they give me a TR when I have failed to live up to the covenants I made when I was baptized?

You baptismal covenants included "conquering nicotine addiction"?

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2015 at 11:18 AM, rongo said:

Hey, you're the one who said that those who have thought about the issue see things your way. The flipside to that coin is that those who disagree with you must not have thought about the issue.

Are you claiming that my summary of what you said is inaccurate?

I am claiming it is not what I intended.

One can have no opinion either way unless one has thought about an issue.

At least no opinion worth considering.

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎20‎/‎2015 at 4:50 AM, Calm said:

When Christ and others have appeared in resurrected bodies they are formed in the same fashion as they had in mortality.  Either the body is not perfected completely changes after resurrection or perhaps resurrection includes being able to morph the body at will in order to adapt it for a current task or just for fun.

Hi, Calm!

The idea that Jesus was resurrected in the same form as his mortal body may be more theological than scriptural.

What I mean is this:

In all four of the post-resurrection appearances to his disciples recorded in the New Testament, Jesus is not initially recognized.

 

[consiglieri]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

God thinks they cannot be trusted with the responsibility of parenthood. This does not mean they would have polluted the gene pool which suggests that their inferior genetics make them doomed to extinction. This also brings up the question? Do exalted bodies even have genes to have a corrupted gene pool?

Your comment also brings up the question as to how God is supposed to keep the men and women in the lesser kingdoms from having procreative sexual relations unless some kind of action is taken.

This is where I think Joseph Fielding Smith was going with his speculations.

If everybody's "parts" are still up and working through the resurrection, how are they to be kept separated?

I mean, we know they won't do as they are told, right?

That's what got them into a lesser kingdom in the first place.

 

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2015 at 11:24 AM, rongo said:

Yawn, indeed. Your prooftexting (by the way --- prooftexting doesn't mean quoting, it means selectively quoting while intentionally misrepresenting. Which is how you used the JFS quote) of the JFS quote has already been laid bare. 

While you're yawning and checking your fingernails, would you mind coming up with just one other quote (JFS, or otherwise) that you think shows GAs stating that people from lower kingdoms are genderless? This is the 3rd time I've asked you, two of which were formal CFRs. Surely, since this is all so droll for you, and you are (self-proclaimed) better-read on JFS than any of us, you should be able to easily do this.

Or acknowledge that you overextended yourself in this specific instance.

I did not proof text the JSF quote.

Just because he said something different than what you previously believed does not mean I proof texted it.

And why should I come up with another such quote?

So you can discount it in the same manner?

Life is too short.

If one such quote from a prophet, seer and revelator (and the foremost LDS scriptorian of his time) will not satisfy you, you will not be convinced should one appear to you from the dead.

 

[consiglieri]

33 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Gosh I don't know, I'm a carpenter. We cut the bad lumber up for blocks. If we don't need anymore blocks it get's burned up as firewood.

And then, according to Brigham Young, it gets recycled into new wood from which better lumber can be made.

 

[rodheadlee]

13 minutes ago, consiglieri said:

And then, according to Brigham Young, it gets recycled into new wood from which better lumber can be made.

 

Yeah well that takes an eternity.

[consiglieri]

3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah well that takes an eternity.

Sometimes only half an eternity.

 

[CV75]

It looks like the question has come up whether people can sin after the resurrection. To me, this is the same question as, “Can God sin?”

From D&C 88, “All kingdoms have a law given; And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.” In other words, we only inhabit the kingdom ruled by the laws we are willing to keep.

The Atonement justifies sinners when they repent of this life’s sins in time. It did not expiate the sins of the first estate, so it seems to make sense it has nothing to do with offsetting sins in the resurrected estate.  In fact, it would seem there can be no “willful disobedience” post-resurrection since one is in a kingdom custom-designed for the glory he is willing to receive and for the law he is willing to abide.

So resurrected people are doing whatever they choose (but as always, not choosing the consequences), and there is only one kingdom where the consequences can be an increase (the mechanics don’t matter). The consequences for actions in a lesser kingdom are no more than what the psyche has already settled for, and pleasure can still substitute for happiness.

This is why I think, prior to being punished for their sins, people might find the lesser kingdoms rather appealing, but once there, acquiesce to their condition and may even tire of the benefits and find something else to do. Gender still has a role in what the soul looks like, thinks like and acts like. So the wishful thinking that loved ones from higher kingdoms will continue visiting and administering to those in lesser kingdoms may well have its limits in some cases!

[consiglieri]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It looks like the question has come up whether people can sin after the resurrection. To me, this is the same question as, “Can God sin?”

From D&C 88, “All kingdoms have a law given; And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom. And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions. All beings who abide not in those conditions are not justified.” In other words, we only inhabit the kingdom ruled by the laws we are willing to keep.

The Atonement justifies sinners when they repent of this life’s sins in time. It did not expiate the sins of the first estate, so it seems to make sense it has nothing to do with offsetting sins in the resurrected estate.  In fact, it would seem there can be no “willful disobedience” post-resurrection since one is in a kingdom custom-designed for the glory he is willing to receive and for the law he is willing to abide.

So resurrected people are doing whatever they choose (but as always, not choosing the consequences), and there is only one kingdom where the consequences can be an increase (the mechanics don’t matter). The consequences for actions in a lesser kingdom are no more than what the psyche has already settled for, and pleasure can still substitute for happiness.

This is why I think, prior to being punished for their sins, people might find the lesser kingdoms rather appealing, but once there, acquiesce to their condition and may even tire of the benefits and find something else to do. Gender still has a role in what the soul looks like, thinks like and acts like. So the wishful thinking that loved ones from higher kingdoms will continue visiting and administering to those in lesser kingdoms may well have its limits in some cases!

Are you saying that those in lesser kingdoms can still have sex, but just no procreation?

[Calm]

18 hours ago, Buckeye said:

 If god's body is not the same image as ours, then there's no need for directional evolution. 

Contrary to scripture though.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Are you saying that those in lesser kingdoms can still have sex, but just no procreation?

That's one possibility that I see that retains the inherent gender of the soul without a continuation of the seeds. Whatever can be done within a particular kingdom is defined by the law of that kingdom. There are a number of directions we can go with this, and a number of considerations to take in assessing how much happiness a soul can derive in any lesser kingdom of glory without a continuation of the seeds.

Can they bring forth spirits who are then adopted by exalted beings? Can they tire of partners after so long and so much variety? Does no one ever have more than a relatively brief sense of belonging to another? Is theirs a continual round of serial partnering and separation? Do they avoid the rejection and commitment? How faithful can they possibly be? Is there an eventual incompatibility inherent in any of the possible “covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations" that can be invented and had in these kingdoms because none are "made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise?” I would think so, since no one but the perfect are perfect!

[consiglieri]

9 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That's one possibility that I see that retains the inherent gender of the soul without a continuation of the seeds. Whatever can be done within a particular kingdom is defined by the law of that kingdom. There are a number of directions we can go with this, and a number of considerations to take in assessing how much happiness a soul can derive in any lesser kingdom of glory without a continuation of the seeds.

Can they bring forth spirits who are then adopted by exalted beings? Can they tire of partners after so long and so much variety? Does no one ever have more than a relatively brief sense of belonging to another? Is theirs a continual round of serial partnering and separation? Do they avoid the rejection and commitment? How faithful can they possibly be? Is there an eventual incompatibility inherent in any of the possible “covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations" that can be invented and had in these kingdoms because none are "made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise?” I would think so, since no one but the perfect are perfect!

I enjoy these speculative discussions with you, CV.

My question keeps coming back to whose speculations we should be more inclined to adopt: (1) Joseph Fielding Smith's speculations regarding "neither man nor woman"; or, (2) The Proclamation's speculation that (apparently) everybody in the eternities is gendered as part of their "purpose."

[CV75]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I enjoy these speculative discussions with you, CV.

My question keeps coming back to whose speculations we should be more inclined to adopt: (1) Joseph Fielding Smith's speculations regarding "neither man nor woman"; or, (2) The Proclamation's speculation that (apparently) everybody in the eternities is gendered as part of their "purpose."

Why leave it to only 2 choices?

Since JFS qualified his conclusion with “I take it that…” and refers to a belief of the “so-called Christian world”— and I think this is where his characterization of other religions’ belief is a bit muddled but I think his goal is to make a point that the restored doctrine of exaltation is more complete— where on one hand God and angels are neither male nor female but pure spirit and immaterial (and note that the Catechism 370 also teaches that “the respective "perfections" of man and woman still reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband), and on the other where the resurrected human body (as viewed by the Catholic and most Protestant churches alike, per Catechism 999, where everyone “will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear," but changed  into a spiritual body) appears as it was in the flesh, I think JFS allows for gender in a resurrected body, but  with changes and limitations according to kingdom that enable or prevent the continuation of the seeds in exaltation, rendering the inhabitants of the lesser kingdoms as functionally neither male nor female with regards to being a partner in an eternal marriage and the continuation of the seeds.

I think JFS' characterization of the other religions’ doctrine is more incomplete than his teaching about LDS doctrines is speculative and that his teaching matches up nicely with the Proclamation. I think the Proclamation is well supported by scripture.

I don’t see any prohibition of physical pleasure in the afterlife in the scriptures, but wickedness never was happiness. I don’t think fornication in the afterlife will have any greater import to the wicked than murder or stealing—nothing can be killed, nothing can really be stolen as we’ll have plenty of everything. Every knee shall bow to the Lord (no false images); no marriage (no adultery); no presence of the Lord so no Sabbath to keep and nothing to use in vain.  That leaves lying, dishonoring, coveting, etc. and that will be done against oneself. And as much physical indulgence as one can get, I suppose, until everyone has tired of accommodating him. But they have already settled for that by only being willing to receive a lesser glory.

Edited December 21, 2015 by CV75

[consiglieri]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why leave it to only 2 choices?

Since JFS qualified his conclusion with “I take it that…” and refers to a belief of the “so-called Christian world”— and I think this is where his characterization of other religions’ belief is a bit muddled but I think his goal is to make a point that the restored doctrine of exaltation is more complete— where on one hand God and angels are neither male nor female but pure spirit and immaterial (and note that the Catechism 370 also teaches that “the respective "perfections" of man and woman still reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband), and on the other where the resurrected human body (as viewed by the Catholic and most Protestant churches alike, per Catechism 999, where everyone “will rise again with their own bodies which they now bear," but changed  into a spiritual body) appears as it was in the flesh, I think JFS allows for gender in a resurrected body, but  with changes and limitations according to kingdom that enable or prevent the continuation of the seeds in exaltation, rendering the inhabitants of the lesser kingdoms as functionally neither male nor female with regards to being a partner in an eternal marriage and the continuation of the seeds.

I think JFS' characterization of the other religions’ doctrine is more incomplete than his teaching about LDS doctrines is speculative and that his teaching matches up nicely with the Proclamation. I think the Proclamation is well supported by scripture.

I don’t see any prohibition of physical pleasure in the afterlife in the scriptures, but wickedness never was happiness. I don’t think fornication in the afterlife will have any greater import to the wicked than murder or stealing—nothing can be killed, nothing can really be stolen as we’ll have plenty of everything. Every knee shall bow to the Lord (no false images); no marriage (no adultery); no presence of the Lord so no Sabbath to keep and nothing to use in vain.  That leaves lying, dishonoring, coveting, etc. and that will be done against oneself. And as much physical indulgence as one can get, I suppose, until everyone has tired of accommodating him. But they have already settled for that by only being willing to receive a lesser glory.

So you are entirely open to the possibility of "free love" in the lower kingdoms?

What would prevent such sexual congress from producing offspring, I wonder . . .

[Zakuska]

Just now, consiglieri said:

So you are entirely open to the possibility of "free love" in the lower kingdoms?

What would prevent such sexual congress from producing offspring, I wonder . . .

Manditory vasectomies?

[JLHPROF]

7 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Are you saying that those in lesser kingdoms can still have sex, but just no procreation?

Perhaps purified resurrected bodies aren't subject to the same hormonal and chemical urges that mortality gives us.  Perhaps sex when resurrected is only desired by those allowed to procreate.

It's all speculation anyway - we just know that Lord has limited who will be allowed "eternal increase" and "endless seed".  Somehow I think the laws of eternity provide a way to enforce that.

[Buckeye]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Contrary to scripture though.

Unless you read 'image' to be charity and other non-physical attributes. 

[Tony Frank]

5 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I enjoy these speculative discussions with you, CV.

My question keeps coming back to whose speculations we should be more inclined to adopt: (1) Joseph Fielding Smith's speculations regarding "neither man nor woman"; or, (2) The Proclamation's speculation that (apparently) everybody in the eternities is gendered as part of their "purpose."

Joseph Fielding Smith was speaking of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms when he spoke those words. Look at his words in context from Doctrines of Salvation.

Quote

 

PROCREATION LIMITED TO CELESTIAL BODIES. Some will gain celestial bodies with all the powers of exaltation and eternal increase. These bodies will shine like the sun as our Savior’s does, as described by John. Those who enter the terrestrial kingdom will have terrestrial bodies, and they will not shine like the sun, but they will be more glorious than the bodies of those who receive the telestial glory.

In both of these kingdoms there will be changes in the bodies and limitations. They will not have the power of increase, neither the power or nature to live as husbands and wives, for this will be denied them and they cannot increase.

Those who receive the exaltation in the celestial kingdom will have the "continuation of the seeds forever." They will live in the family relationship. In the terrestrial and in the telestial kingdoms there will be no marriage. Those who enter there will remain "separately and singly" forever.

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 — neither man nor woman, merely immortal beings having received the resurrection.

 

The Proclamation on the Family states, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," but we can see from Joseph Fielding Smith's words that gender will serve no "purpose" in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

So you are entirely open to the possibility of "free love" in the lower kingdoms?

What would prevent such sexual congress from producing offspring, I wonder . . .

While I find the thought repugnant, i think such "free love" is possible and supported by our doctrines as explained. But I figure that no co-eternal human intelligence would opt to come into a kingdom ruled by the less-than-exalted. Without a willing intelligence, no spirit offspring would come forth, the same as in this world where, without a corresponding spirit, there is no soul to be born.

But entertaining the thought, spirit offspring of “free love” would be rescued by, or choose to be adopted by exalted beings to join a legitimate family as equal heirs, just as the promise for the spiritually re-born operates in this life. Thus there is still no continuation of the seed for the wicked, and their gender serves a procreative purpose of sorts, but reigned in for a higher purpose by superior intelligences.

The wicked are always trumped by the righteous.

[Bobbieaware]

54 minutes ago, Tony Frank said:

Joseph Fielding Smith was speaking of the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms when he spoke those words. Look at his words in context from Doctrines of Salvation.

The Proclamation on the Family states, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose," but we can see from Joseph Fielding Smith's words that gender will serve no "purpose" in the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms.

Dare I say Elder Joseph Smith may have speculated incorrectly on this one? If the Family Proclaimation carries the weight of Scripture -- and I believe it does -- then the words of the united First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve trump the speculations of a lone apostle who was looking through a glass darkly. Note that Elder Smith's final statement is prefaced by the words "I take it," which is tantamount to saying that what he was about to say was only speculative.

Taking my cue from the Family Proclaimation, I personally believe men will always be men and women will always be women in the eternities, even in the lower kingdoms of glory. In fact, I believe men and women will still be attracted to each other and desire to form loving relationships with each other, but that such relationships will be experienced in a less-exalted manner than will the male/female relationships as experienced in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. Though this opinion of mine is admittedly based partially on speculation, I find it very difficult to believe men and women are not going to be resurrected anatomically correct. And if they are resurrected anatomically correct, with every organ and even the very hairs of the head being properly placed in the body for all eternity, I find it difficult to imagine men won't continue to feel and act like men and women won't continue to feel and act like women.

[consiglieri]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Perhaps purified resurrected bodies aren't subject to the same hormonal and chemical urges that mortality gives us.  Perhaps sex when resurrected is only desired by those allowed to procreate.

It's all speculation anyway - we just know that Lord has limited who will be allowed "eternal increase" and "endless seed".  Somehow I think the laws of eternity provide a way to enforce that.

I don't know the answer either, JLH.

But the crux of the issue is that any speculative answers seem to remove "gender as an essential characteristic of individual . . . eternal identity and purpose."

Contrary to the Proclamation.

Which is really the point of this entire thread.

Which we seem to keep coming back to.

And which I think continues to prove my point.

 

[smac97]

> But the crux of the issue is that any speculative answers seem to remove "gender as an essential characteristic of individual . . . eternal identity and purpose."

> Contrary to the Proclamation.

==So if anonymous online speculation contradicts the Proclamation given to us by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, your preference is to . . . jettison the Proclamation?

==Well . . . okay.

-Smac

[CV75]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I don't know the answer either, JLH.

But the crux of the issue is that any speculative answers seem to remove "gender as an essential characteristic of individual . . . eternal identity and purpose."

Contrary to the Proclamation.

Which is really the point of this entire thread.

Which we seem to keep coming back to.

And which I think continues to prove my point.

Would you list what you consider to be the non-speculative answers so we can look at the topic from that angle? I'm sure as well that other answers may have come across as somewhat speculative but are actually well-grounded in scripture and doctrine, so maybe give them a pass for the time being and include them as well. Thank you!