Analytics Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) This morning I was reading the book : Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden Jim Al-Khalili,, and I learned something interesting about clownfish. As explained by Wikipedia: Quote Some species exhibit sequential hermaphroditism. In these species, such as many species of coral reef fishes, sex change is a normal anatomical process.[1]Clownfish, wrasses, moray eels, gobies[2] and other fish species are known to change sex, including reproductive functions. A school of clownfish is always built into a hierarchy with a female fish at the top. When she dies, the most dominant male changes sex and takes her place.[3] In the wrasses (the family Labridae), sex change is from female to male, with the largest female of the harem changing into a male and taking over the harem upon the disappearance of the previous dominant male. I thought this was really interesting. If Nemo is successful in life, he'll grow up a male and will then become a female. Do you think this weird fact will cause anybody to accuse Disney of using a clownfish in this movie to confuse children of gender identity? If God really is in charge of things and really thinks that gender is eternal, why did he create certain animals this way? Just something to think about... Edited January 20, 2016 by Analytics 1
The Nehor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 When I can switch genders at will I will consider it a mutable characteristic. And no, I do not mean hormone transfusions and surgery to be a demonstration of this mutability. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 12 minutes ago, Analytics said: This morning I was reading the book : Life on the Edge: The Coming of Age of Quantum Biology by Johnjoe McFadden Jim Al-Khalili,, and I learned something interesting about clownfish. As explained by Wikipedia: I thought this was really interesting. If Nemo is successful in life, he'll grow up a male and will then become a female. Do you think this weird fact will cause anybody to accuse Disney of using a clownfish in this movie to confuse children of gender identity? If God really is in charge of things and really thinks that gender is eternal, why did he create certain animals this way? Just something to think about... He created them this way specifically to confuse us and make us want to be fish instead of humans. It's working. The school is forming as we speak. Praise the lord! 1
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 I think this is an important point, Analytics, and goes to undermine the statement in the Proclamation that gender is an essential element of our eternal character. I started a thread about that a few weeks ago, pointing out that there is no basis in scripture for such a statement. The Q15 just made this one up out of whole cloth. And the reason for doing so seems to me more political than theological. 1
The Nehor Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 1 minute ago, consiglieri said: I think this is an important point, Analytics, and goes to undermine the statement in the Proclamation that gender is an essential element of our eternal character. I started a thread about that a few weeks ago, pointing out that there is no basis in scripture for such a statement. The Q15 just made this one up out of whole cloth. And the reason for doing so seems to me more political than theological. Or it could be revelation. 4
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, consiglieri said: I think this is an important point, Analytics, and goes to undermine the statement in the Proclamation that gender is an essential element of our eternal character. I started a thread about that a few weeks ago, pointing out that there is no basis in scripture for such a statement. The Q15 just made this one up out of whole cloth. And the reason for doing so seems to me more political than theological. Yeah! Just like Joseph made all that stuff up about seeing God and then them there bible verses what ain't in the bible at all! Said he translated them outa thin air!! Right arm , bruthah! No basis in REAL scripture for them Indians being Jewish either! What a crock! Edited January 20, 2016 by mfbukowski 2
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah! Just like Joseph made all that stuff up about seeing God and then them there bible verses what ain't in the bible at all! Said he translated them outa thin air!! Right arm , bruthah! No basis in REAL scripture for them Indians being Jewish either! What a crock! Hard to get your meaning through your sarcasm, here.
thesometimesaint Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 In Sea Horses it is the male that carries the young. Earthworms are hermaphroditic. In Crocodiles temperature of nest determines sex. I'll worry about it when I become a Sea Horse, Earthworm, and a crocodile. 3
carbon dioxide Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Perhaps the proclamation of the family is centered on the human family. The scriptures are directed as us. They are not directed at dogs, cats, fish, birds, bacteria, or anything else. As the sons and daughters of God, our gender is important. We will all be resurrected with our gender remaining the same. As to some forms of life who do not have one set gender, big deal. They can ignore the proclamation. They can also ignore the whole concept of exaltation as it does not apply to them. 3
filovirus Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Is the soul eternal? If I cut a starfish in half, and both halves go on to become two separate whole starfishes, does each new starfish only have half a soul? Or is it one soul shared between two starfishes?
Popular Post mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2016 Popular Post Posted January 20, 2016 6 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Hard to get your meaning through your sarcasm, here. Quote The Q15 just made this one up out of whole cloth The point is that revelation always LOOKS as if it is "made up of whole cloth" as others have also said. I say it was revelation- you say what you like, I couldn't care less. There is not much to say about it other than swap opinions, with no consequence. The notion that the behavior of fish relates to the spirituality of mankind is totally absurd. I cannot communicate with Analytics so I will not try. The view that the Q15 clarified has been the standard of history in Christianity, and can be found implied in many church doctrines, including the Bible etc. To say that "homosexuality is wrong" is "made up" is a gross distortion. The notion that we, as spirits, were in HF's presence before we came here, along with the instruction to "consider ourselves as if we are each Adam and Eve" and the whole notion that the person Michael came here as "Adam" are scriptural evidence that we have always believed that gender is part of our eternal character. It is absurd to say it is not scriptural. And all the 15 did was clarify what has always been taught in the Proclamation, and subsequent clarifications. 5
Analytics Posted January 20, 2016 Author Posted January 20, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, consiglieri said: I think this is an important point, Analytics, and goes to undermine the statement in the Proclamation that gender is an essential element of our eternal character. I started a thread about that a few weeks ago, pointing out that there is no basis in scripture for such a statement. The Q15 just made this one up out of whole cloth. And the reason for doing so seems to me more political than theological. What's always struck me is the idea in Mormonism that because of their fallen nature, our physical bodies aren't necessarily representative of our "true" spiritual selves. You could have any number of diseases or deformations that aren't what our spirits really look like on the inside. These things will all be fixed in the resurrection. If somebody really, deeply, and totally feels that who they really are doesn't match the body they find themselves in, how can an apostle that never even met the person be fully 100% confident that the discrepancy is in what the person feels on the inside, and not how he looks on the outside? Edited January 20, 2016 by Analytics 1
Jeanne Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Or it could be revelation. Can't be revelation. It didn't start out in the CHI, 3
Gray Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: As a professional revelation taster I disrespectfully disagree. A clever quip like this deserves my upvote
consiglieri Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 21 minutes ago, Gray said: A clever quip like this deserves my upvote Now he's just going to get a big head. Well . . . bigger. 1
carbon dioxide Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 1 hour ago, Analytics said: What's always struck me is the idea in Mormonism that because of their fallen nature, our physical bodies aren't necessarily representative of our "true" spiritual selves. You could have any number of diseases or deformations that aren't what our spirits really look like on the inside. These things will all be fixed in the resurrection. If somebody really, deeply, and totally feels that who they really are doesn't match the body they find themselves in, how can an apostle that never even met the person be fully 100% confident that the discrepancy is in what the person feels on the inside, and not how he looks on the outside? Our bodies might be fallen. Our bodies might be defective and have issues but that does not mean I am a cat trapped in the body of a human. There is no indication that anyone will be resurrected with a body of a different gender. 3
Traela Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 2 hours ago, Analytics said: What's always struck me is the idea in Mormonism that because of their fallen nature, our physical bodies aren't necessarily representative of our "true" spiritual selves. You could have any number of diseases or deformations that aren't what our spirits really look like on the inside. These things will all be fixed in the resurrection. If somebody really, deeply, and totally feels that who they really are doesn't match the body they find themselves in, how can an apostle that never even met the person be fully 100% confident that the discrepancy is in what the person feels on the inside, and not how he looks on the outside? I figure that the brain, the DNA, and the plumbing each get a vote. The brain only gets to decide as a tie-breaker.
Russell C McGregor Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: I think this is an important point, Analytics, and goes to undermine the statement in the Proclamation that gender is an essential element of our eternal character. That's right. Because we're clownfish. Or at least, someone here is a clown... 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: I started a thread about that a few weeks ago, pointing out that there is no basis in scripture for such a statement. The Q15 just made this one up out of whole cloth. I agree that either you or they are consciously dishonest. I just don't think it's them. Sorry. 4 hours ago, consiglieri said: And the reason for doing so seems to me more political than theological. Yes, I'm inclined to accept that your opposition to revealed truth is more political than theological. The Proclamation refers to "all human beings." No other species are included or contemplated therein. The argument in the OP is accordingly vacuous, and no competent "analytics" have been applied. 4
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Analytics said: What's always struck me is the idea in Mormonism that because of their fallen nature, our physical bodies aren't necessarily representative of our "true" spiritual selves. You could have any number of diseases or deformations that aren't what our spirits really look like on the inside. These things will all be fixed in the resurrection. If somebody really, deeply, and totally feels that who they really are doesn't match the body they find themselves in, how can an apostle that never even met the person be fully 100% confident that the discrepancy is in what the person feels on the inside, and not how he looks on the outside? So homosexuality is a defect like being handicapped because of our fallen nature?
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 3 hours ago, Jeanne said: Can't be revelation. It didn't start out in the CHI, Neither is the Book of Mormon. What's your point? We have an open canon.
The Nehor Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 36 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: So homosexuality is a defect like being handicapped because of our fallen nature? Probably but I know the Brethren have been praying a lot to understand this and I will defer to what they say.
Jeanne Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 13 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Neither is the Book of Mormon. What's your point? We have an open canon. No point really..just means that the last revelation started with the CHI..just chiding..
mfbukowski Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 19 minutes ago, Jeanne said: No point really..just means that the last revelation started with the CHI..just chiding.. Yeah, that gets tough in the winter, that chiding. Try some talcum powder. That'd make anyone mad.
Jeanne Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah, that gets tough in the winter, that chiding. Try some talcum powder. That'd make anyone mad. You're a hoot mfbukowski..I will try the talcum powder but it probably won't help. You might want to try it to see if it gives you any sense of humor. Edited January 21, 2016 by Jeanne
Analytics Posted January 21, 2016 Author Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: ....The Proclamation refers to "all human beings." No other species are included or contemplated therein. The argument in the OP is accordingly vacuous, and no competent "analytics" have been applied. I don't think that is 100% true--Boyd K. Packer compared human sexuality to sexuality in the animal kingdom, and used his observation of animal behavior as an example of sexual taboos that are so awful not even animals do them. For example, he said, "Animals by and large are promiscuous in responding to their mating instincts. Nevertheless, their mating rituals follow set patterns and have rigid limitations. For instance, animals do not pair up with their own gender to satisfy their mating instincts." https://www.lds.org/manual/eternal-marriage-student-manual/intimacy-in-marriage?lang=eng (Apparently he never saw a nature documentary about one of our closest relatives, the bonobos (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyOZyN88RBU) In any case, God's ways are certainly not man's ways, but it seems to me that if God's opinions on gender identity were as rigidly black-and-white as the apostles', then God would have consistently created animals with fixed genders. Edited January 21, 2016 by Analytics 3
Recommended Posts