Eternal Gender: Why? (a part II, more focused thread)

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So the resurrected Jesus of religious art could actually be a fair skinned blue eyed guy, not a olive skinned dark hair/eyed Jew?

If he wants to be...

Yes I think that is his point.  Or that he could become a woman if he wanted to be or saw that it was good for him to become a woman.  And then change back into a man, if he wanted to or saw a good reason to do it.  

Do you see any problem with that idea?  Maybe all we need is enough intelligence within our innate intelligent being to see how things really are and are always going to be.

[Robert F. Smith]

41 minutes ago, Nofear said:

....................................................

Our Heavenly Parents also house these intelligences and their accompanying spirit body in physical bodies. Thus we were begotten and born (on earth)........................

Error.  Our Earthly parents do that, except in the case of Jesus, who was a hybrid.

[Nofear]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes I think that is his point.  Or that he could become a woman if he wanted to be or saw that it was good for him to become a woman.  And then change back into a man, if he wanted to or saw a good reason to do it.  

Do you see any problem with that idea?  Maybe all we need is enough intelligence within our innate intelligent being to see how things really are and are always going to be.

I do indeed see a problem with that. But, just because it is a problem doesn't mean that it is conceptually impossible from a naive perspective. So, I wanted to see if others had insights that move beyond the naive. Instead, I find denials about as philosophically profound (and incorrect) as saying it is impossible to throw a javelin from east to west because the earth is rotating from west to east at hundreds of miles per hour. Color me profoundly unimpressed.

[Nofear]

10 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Error.  Our Earthly parents do that, except in the case of Jesus, who was a hybrid.

You're correct. I fixed the typo.

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Error.  Our Earthly parents do that, except in the case of Jesus, who was a hybrid.

I think he meant our Heavenly Parents do that when they send (or otherwise somehow put) our spirit inside of our body as it is born into a physical body on this planet. Otherwise our Earthly parents are just creating the physical body with no spirit to go into it.

I'd actually like to change his whole outline to make it fit with what I believe actually, really happens.

Instead of saying this:

1. A part of us existed, uncreate, eternal, and extending into the infinite past -- as "intelligences"*.
2. Our Heavenly Parents laid hold upon these "intelligences" and housed them an a spirit body. Thus we were begotten and born.
3. Our Heavenly Parents also house these intelligences and their accompanying spirit body in physical bodies. Thus we were begotten and born (on earth).
4. There will be a time of separation of the intelligence+spirit body and a physical body. The resurrection, however, will rectify that separation.

I would say something like this, instead:

1. We exist as parts of our Heavenly Parents (and grand parents, etc) even before they reproduce themselves as distinct other persons apart from themselves  -- as "intelligences"*.
2. Our Heavenly Parents then reproduce themselves as distinct other people having their own spirit bodies. Thus we were begotten and born as sons and daughters of God.
3. Our Heavenly Parents then send us as spirits to be housed within physical bodies that have somehow become mortal. Thus we were begotten and born (on earth).
4. There will be a time of separation of our spirit body and a physical body. The resurrection, however, will rectify that separation.

[Nofear]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

So the resurrected Jesus of religious art could actually be a fair skinned blue eyed guy, not a olive skinned dark hair/eyed Jew?

If he wants to be...

He apparently wanted holes in his hands, feet, and side... any particular, physical impediment from doing what you propose? There might be spiritual, ethical, and social reasons but are there physical reasons?

 

PS: Take the following quote for what you will (e.g. as validation of your position).

Quote

The sign of the dove was instituted before the creation of the world; a witness for the Holy Ghost, and the devil cannot come in the sign of a dove. The Holy Ghost is a personage, and is in the form of a personage. It does not confine itself to the form of the dove, but in sign of the dove. The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove; but the sign of a dove was given to John to signify the truth of the deed, as the dove is an emblem or token of truth and innocence. TPJS p. 276

 

[Nofear]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I think he meant our Heavenly Parents do that when they send (or otherwise somehow put) our spirit inside of our body as it is born into a physical body on this planet. Otherwise our Earthly parents are just creating the physical body with no spirit to go into it.

This is also create. Nonetheless, I changed the language to make it easier to understand.
 

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

1.  We exist as parts of our Heavenly Parents (and grand parents, etc) even before they reproduce themselves as distinct other persons apart from themselves  -- as "intelligences"*.

There are lds theologians (e.g. Orson Pratt?) who speculated that intelligence is not individualistic but a property of every particle in the universe. And as such, we did not achieve, specific individual identity until begotten with a spirit body. A variation of the idea you propose. I don't subscribe to either of those but for the question of gender, all three perspectives still yield the same questions.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, Nofear said:

There are lds theologians (e.g. Orson Pratt?) who speculated that intelligence is not individualistic but a property of every particle in the universe. And as such, we did not achieve, specific individual identity until begotten with a spirit body. A variation of the idea you propose. I don't subscribe to either of those but for the question of gender, all three perspectives still yield the same questions.

I understand that idea to mean that every particle of intelligence in the universe is of a particular kind of intelligence, and I agree that there are many kinds of intelligences or intelligent beings in all of the universe.  I don't agree with some who state that intelligences can become some other kind of intelligence, though.  Each kind of intelligence or intelligent being reproduces itself however each kind goes about it, but all stay the same kind as the kind that reproduced them.  We are the kind of being we are because of who and where we came from and there was never a time when we were apart from our parents until they created us as distinct people,  their children, apart from themselves.  I have a feeling that we are not and never will be totally apart from them, though.  Just separate and distinct individuals with our common heritage.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

But if there has been no beginning nor will there be an end, there is already one form of infinite nature within natural law. 

I am not following this at all

Infinite nature?  Beginning or end of what? Within what community / context could these statements be justifiable ?

Can we check these statements for truth or falsity within any community at all?

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I am not following this at all

Infinite nature?  Beginning or end of what? Within what community / context could these statements be justifiable ?

Can we check these statements for truth or falsity within any community at all?

Yes and you will get both true and false answers since not everybody is in agreement with each other.

And you do understand that it must needs be this and no other way, don't cha?

There must needs be an opposition in all things otherwise we would cease to exist. 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/12/2019 at 10:55 AM, Nofear said:

I first wrote a great deal more but I think it can be distilled down to a simpler situation.

• Exalted beings (eventually) are omnipotent. The have full control over existence inasmuch as control is possible . That would include their own physical and spirit body.
  • If such a being wants to change his hair, eye, skin color -- he or she can.
  • If such a being wants to retain physical markings consistent with mortal wounds -- he or she can.
  • If such a being wants to be a foot taller or have four fingers -- he or she can.
• Celestial and Eternal Society is the pinnacle of harmony, peace, felicity, and efficacy.
  • Our species has chosen to be basically gender binary
  • We know that numerous sex/gender models exist and are present in different species
• Our spirit bodies were created by our Heavenly Parents
  • A part of us is eternal and uncreate (I call that intelligent matter) and predates our spirit bodies
  • We do not know if gender existed for us before our spirit body (as the D&C suggests, eternal does not necessarily mean into the infinite past or future)

These are the basic facts of LDS theology. While I have several non-majority (yet still consistent with orthodoxy) opinions, I think these are mostly non-controversial as being consistent with our theology.

So, how would you answer these questions?

• If an Exalted Being wants to change the physiological gender of their resurrected body, is that possible?
• Why has Eternal and Celestial Society chosen a gender binary mechanism?
• If gender existed before our spirit body, what does "gender" mean for a something that has no body?
• If gender did not exist before our spirit body, what was the mechanism whereby our Heavenly Parents chose a gender? Is that an immutable choice?

 

A note: These questions are not designed to be subversive in any way even though it might come across that way. I am theologically orthodox and orthopraxic. I fully support and sustain the Brethren, Elder Oaks, and the rest. I have my own partial answers to these questions, but other commentary may add insight that had not occurred to me.

Do we really believe we are capable of knowing how this works while we see through a glass darkly?

This is the best story I can make up. Assuming an LDS context, I would answer this way:

In order for God to interact with his children and be a "father" in any real sense, I believe he has to be immanent, as opposed to transcendent, and therefore self determined.

That means he creates his own laws for himself voluntarily, as we do to perhaps not eat sweets while on a diet, and unlike most of us, does accepts the limits he has put upon himself.

He has the ability to do "anything" whatever that means, yet limits himself by his own "natural" laws.

So to answer:

1) it is possible I believe for him to change his body, thereby violating his own laws and ceasing to be God. Not going to happen. But consider perhaps a genderless Holy Ghost. That gets very complicated 

2) Gender binary has proven in evolution to work best, and so God has adopted ot as natural law. Parents are necessary for the good of the species 

3) Gender is meaningless unless you have experienced it, therefore the Adam and Eve story. Fall from innocence = understanding gender 

4) that part of the story for us babies has not been told yet.

Remember we are all still Spirit babies, learning baby stories, and that is the best we can expect.

I have something to go repent for now: lack of work 

This board is worse than chocolate cake.

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Nofear said:

I didn't find much common ground upon which to reply. Though, curiously, I like you suspect that intelligent matter can act without being acted upon (as opposed to all other stuff in the universe). This, unfortunately violates the laws of conservation of energy, momentum, angular momentum and breaks a whole host of other laws governing physical  matter. We have no framework upon which to discuss intelligent matter. And so I set it aside for the time being.

I quite agree that "gender is an eternal principle". That does not mean it extends into the infinite past. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19.4-12?lang=eng#4-12

I did not use the term “intelligent matter” nor attempt to convey that idea, only that everything (even a force) can be said to be matter on some scale. And I did not say that gender extends into the infinite past; quite the contrary: I suggested: "Once we progress so as to choose an eternal perspective (which can happen as an intelligence/spirit), gender has meaning."

So I see no basis in your comprehension of my posts to assess whether there is common ground or not, but it leaves me wondering why you don't engage my actual points even when I proposed ways to support contradicting points (see my original post addressing your bullet questions #3 and #4).

Edited October 14, 2019 by CV75

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Remember we are all still Spirit babies, learning baby stories, and that is the best we can expect.

I'd say Adam and Eve were spirit babies when they were in the garden of Eden BEFORE they ate the fruit of that tree.  After eating it I'd say they had advanced through spirit baby status and were at least spiritual toddlers on their way to becoming spiritual teenagers.

And then sometime within their next 100 years or so I'd say they graduated to become full fledged spiritual adults.

How much we know doesn't equate to how old we are, spiritually.  There are some people who are a million years old spiritually who don''t know (or believe) nearly as much as a 50 year old spiritual adult.

But I do still like to hear and read spiritual baby stories every once in a while.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think he meant our Heavenly Parents do that when they send (or otherwise somehow put) our spirit inside of our body as it is born into a physical body on this planet. Otherwise our Earthly parents are just creating the physical body with no spirit to go into it................................

Actually he agreed with me, said it was his error, and he has corrected it.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Do we really believe we are capable of knowing how this works while we see through a glass darkly?

[snip]

So to answer:

1) it is possible I believe for him to change his body, thereby violating his own laws and ceasing to be God. Not going to happen. But consider perhaps a genderless Holy Ghost. That gets very complicated 

2) Gender binary has proven in evolution to work best, and so God has adopted ot as natural law. Parents are necessary for the good of the species 

3) Gender is meaningless unless you have experienced it, therefore the Adam and Eve story. Fall from innocence = understanding gender 

4) that part of the story for us babies has not been told yet.

[snip]

Thank you for the sensible answer. I quite agree that there is much that is, in many respects, vanity for seeking. I'm a vain person in that way.

1) No, God, or any exalted person, couldn't change their body in a way that would be "wrong". I'm actually ok with the idea that it is theoretically possible and they simply don't because it would not be correct behavior. There are *lots* of things they could do but don't because it would be wrong. There is a part nagging at me that says it's not the full answer but I may have to be content seeing through the glass darkly.

2) "Proven" is perhaps a bit strong, but no reason to contend the point as it that simply leaves the question of why is binary best? This is perhaps the most important aspect of all the questions I asked.

3) I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve had and to some degree understood gender before the fall. Adam, after all, knew Eve's title before the Fall.

4) Very true. I know of *no* account of premortal infants. Every account, however trustworthy or not, has premortal spirits as adults. But that doesn't mean that we didn't have some kind growing phase from infant to adult spirit body. If anybody is aware of such an account, I would be quite interested to hear it. That said, I'm on the camp that prior to our gaining a spirit body our entity did not have gender (or memory, or the ability to make intelligent choices, or pretty much the ability to do anything besides random acts ... but that is a whole different thread/story/discussion).

[Nofear]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually he agreed with me, said it was his error, and he has corrected it.

But Ahab's interpretation of the typo/not-typo works too. Either way.

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I did not use the term “intelligent matter” nor attempt to convey that idea, only that everything (even a force) can be said to be matter on some scale. And I did not say that gender extends into the infinite past; quite the contrary: I suggested: "Once we progress so as to choose an eternal perspective (which can happen as an intelligence/spirit), gender has meaning."

So I see no basis in your comprehension of my posts to assess whether there is common ground or not, but it leaves me wondering why you don't engage my actual points even when I proposed ways to support contradicting points (see my original post addressing your bullet questions #3 and #4).

My and your world paradigms and language seem to be talking past each other and so neither of us don't understand each other (or at least me understanding you). I see you as saying gender exists after our [something--we use the same word differently] progresses to a point where it[?] chooses an eternal perspective and then gender has meaning and is a "force which manifests or expresses itself according to one’s perspective". I can parrot the words, nonetheless, these same words deny me comprehension.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'd say Adam and Eve were spirit babies when they were in the garden of Eden BEFORE they ate the fruit of that tree.  After eating it I'd say they had advanced through spirit baby status and were at least spiritual toddlers on their way to becoming spiritual teenagers.

And then sometime within their next 100 years or so I'd say they graduated to become full fledged spiritual adults.

How much we know doesn't equate to how old we are, spiritually.  There are some people who are a million years old spiritually who don''t know (or believe) nearly as much as a 50 year old spiritual adult.

But I do still like to hear and read spiritual baby stories every once in a while.

 

One can be intellectually immature at any age.  I said nothing about how old anyone is. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Thank you for the sensible answer. I quite agree that there is much that is, in many respects, vanity for seeking. I'm a vain person in that way.

1) No, God, or any exalted person, couldn't change their body in a way that would be "wrong". I'm actually ok with the idea that it is theoretically possible and they simply don't because it would not be correct behavior. There are *lots* of things they could do but don't because it would be wrong. There is a part nagging at me that says it's not the full answer but I may have to be content seeing through the glass darkly.

2) "Proven" is perhaps a bit strong, but no reason to contend the point as it that simply leaves the question of why is binary best? This is perhaps the most important aspect of all the questions I asked.

3) I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve had and to some degree understood gender before the fall. Adam, after all, knew Eve's title before the Fall.

4) Very true. I know of *no* account of premortal infants. Every account, however trustworthy or not, has premortal spirits as adults. But that doesn't mean that we didn't have some kind growing phase from infant to adult spirit body. If anybody is aware of such an account, I would be quite interested to hear it. That said, I'm on the camp that prior to our gaining a spirit body our entity did not have gender (or memory, or the ability to make intelligent choices, or pretty much the ability to do anything besides random acts ... but that is a whole different thread/story/discussion).

I believe that binary is best for the reason cited- it is the method that has produced humanity after eons of evolution and of course Father knew that.  After perhaps billions of experiments on perhaps billions of planets, if we assume that is literal as we understand it, The Gods I am sure know what works best and what does not.  They know the combination of genes and environment which will lead to the direction they want, and in case of problems, an asteroid here, a flood there, give infinite possibilities in their moves on the giant "chess board" of natural law that they use to create whatever they like within the limits they have put on themselves, that we cannot fathom.   On this view, they can think billions of "moves" ahead without "causing" the outcome any more than a chess pro creates the outcomes they can against say, a child player just learning. 

Yes the child has agency and theoretically could make the right moves to defeat the master, so it is not really "determined" that the master will win and yet in a sense it is a sure bet who will win the game.  The master does not "cause" the moves the child makes but the outcome - through the intelligence and experience gap between the child and the master- makes it a virtual certainty.

That is an analogy suggested by William James.   https://www.iep.utm.edu/james-o/

Quote

In “The Dilemma of Determinism,” James depicts his image of God with a memorable analogy, comparing God to a master chess player engaged in a give-and-take with us novices.  We are free to make our own moves; yet the master knows all the moves we could possibly make, the odds of our choosing one over the others, and how best to respond to any move we choose to make.  This indicates two departures from the traditional Judeo-Christian concept of God, in that the master is interacting with us in time (rather than eternal) and does not know everything in the future, to the extent that it is freely chosen by us.  In “Reflex Action and Theism,” James subscribes to a theistic belief in a personal God with whom we can maintain interpersonal relations, who possesses the deepest power in reality (not necessarily omnipotent) and a mind (not omniscient).  We can love and respect God to the extent that we are committed to the pursuit of common values.  In “Is Life Worth Living?” James even suggests that God may derive strength and energy from our collaboration (Will, pp. 181-182, 116, 122, 141, 61).  Elsewhere, rejecting the Hegelian notion of God as an all-encompassing Absolute, he subscribes to a God that is finite in knowledge or in power or in both, one that acts in time and has a history and an environment, like us (Universe, pp. 269, 272; see Letters, vol. 2, pp. 213-215, for James’s responses to a 1904 questionnaire regarding his personal religious beliefs).

So if we take this view, we also have all the intelligence collected by all the Gods in the Council in their infinite experience on everything ever created.   It must work I would think except of course as always in biology there are exceptions which actually strengthen the model.  If someday homosexuality and/or the other what- 45 other genders?  wins the evolutionary battle, so be it.   I see it as an uphill battle though.

Biologically we have a female parent and a male parent.  I am morally committed to that view but will not go into it further as far as advantages because I am tired of being insulted and shouted down for my beliefs.

Did they know about gender?  Sure- "book learning" but no experience.  They were not dummies and I am sure that was part of the deal and their selection to be the first, according to the story fleshed out.  Incidentally I see this kind of like Tolkien- if you ever write a story you will realize that sometimes you have to go back and revise or insert something in the beginning to make it all work out as the story ends.

Also I was not talking about PREMORTAL infants but saying that we all are still babies in coming up with these paradigms/stories about God through our more mature prophets- but even they are still babies intellectually compared to Father and the God Family.

Every word in scripture came out of a human mouth even for those who believe it is God breathed- because he still uses human words in scriptures with all their problems.   

Yet again- through a glass but not face to face.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

But Ahab's interpretation of the typo/not-typo works too. Either way.

Does that mean that invention is the mother of necessity?

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Nofear said:

My and your world paradigms and language seem to be talking past each other and so neither of us don't understand each other (or at least me understanding you). I see you as saying gender exists after our [something--we use the same word differently] progresses to a point where it[?] chooses an eternal perspective and then gender has meaning and is a "force which manifests or expresses itself according to one’s perspective". I can parrot the words, nonetheless, these same words deny me comprehension.

You suggested you were incorporating physics into your paradigm. Yet in physics, force and power are not interchangeable, which you seem to assert. But force is the fundamental result of an interaction between two objects [material things, and all things are material], and power is an expression of [spiritual] energy consumed over time. Force is an element of [spiritual] power, but not the same thing. In addition, classical physics doesn’t work for what I am describing, but quantum and theoretical physics do (e.g. separate two planets far enough, and where does the gravity between them go?).

We can only perceive forces and particles – some more fine and pure than others – according to the laws of the sphere upon which we stand. The spheres we occupy, and where God has placed us to act ideally advance in perfection over time, so at some point we perceive more and more eternal principles with greater and greater depth, granularity and utility.

This is how gender can be described as a force that we come to understand as our eternal perspective advances. It can be understood to be a force that results from the interaction between two heavenly parents, one male and one female. As we come to understand it, and in concert with God, we use it ourselves in one of the two ways.

[Nofear]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You suggested you were incorporating physics into your paradigm. Yet in physics, force and power are not interchangeable, which you seem to assert. But force is the fundamental result of an interaction between two objects [material things, and all things are material], and power is an expression of [spiritual] energy consumed over time. Force is an element of [spiritual] power, but not the same thing. In addition, classical physics doesn’t work for what I am describing, but quantum and theoretical physics do (e.g. separate two planets far enough, and where does the gravity between them go?).

We can only perceive forces and particles – some more fine and pure than others – according to the laws of the sphere upon which we stand. The spheres we occupy, and where God has placed us to act ideally advance in perfection over time, so at some point we perceive more and more eternal principles with greater and greater depth, granularity and utility.

This is how gender can be described as a force that we come to understand as our eternal perspective advances. It can be understood to be a force that results from the interaction between two heavenly parents, one male and one female. As we come to understand it, and in concert with God, we use it ourselves in one of the two ways.

Sorry. I see words that make some sense to me and some I probably agree with. But, honestly, I have no good idea of what you are talking about. It's ok. That says more about me than you.

 

PS: Gravity doesn't "go" anywhere ... it just gets weaker. Technically we currently feel gravitational effects from stars billions of years away. Also, general relativity describes gravity immensely successfully. No flaw has yet be found. But general relativity doesn't even describe it in terms of force. We can simply describe behaviors that could be consistent with what we think of as a force with EM and the strong and weak forces.

[Nofear]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I believe that binary is best for the reason cited- it is the method that has produced humanity after eons of evolution and of course Father knew that.  After perhaps billions of experiments on perhaps billions of planets, if we assume that is literal as we understand it, The Gods I am sure know what works best and what does not.  They know the combination of genes and environment which will lead to the direction they want, and in case of problems, an asteroid here, a flood there, give infinite possibilities in their moves on the giant "chess board" of natural law that they use to create whatever they like within the limits they have put on themselves, that we cannot fathom.   On this view, they can think billions of "moves" ahead without "causing" the outcome any more than a chess pro creates the outcomes they can against say, a child player just learning. 

...

So if we take this view, we also have all the intelligence collected by all the Gods in the Council in their infinite experience on everything ever created.   It must work I would think except of course as always in biology there are exceptions which actually strengthen the model.  If someday homosexuality and/or the other what- 45 other genders?  wins the evolutionary battle, so be it.   I see it as an uphill battle though.

...

Biologically we have a female parent and a male parent.  I am morally committed to that view but will not go into it further as far as advantages because I am tired of being insulted and shouted down for my beliefs.

I quite agree with you. Still, it is a utilitarian answer and not an explanatory one. Not a big deal though. As you point out, when it comes to God, often we know what he asks of us "just works" and we don't know why. But, I can wonder why still. One of the nice things you point out is the vast plurality of worlds that have existed before us. So very often we Latter-day Saints make the myopic mistake of assuming this world is the end all be all of mortal worlds. The Plan of Happiness has been executed countless times before. It is a plan that works and gets results.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, Nofear said:

@Robert F. Smith, @CV75

<snip>

* To me, these entities were "simple", without parts or components. It is a opinion derived from reason. Consequently for me, gender appears at stage 2 and not before. Theologically, there is no statement about this and so I don't hold it against members for believing otherwise beyond believing they are foolish and haven't thought about it to any degree.

I did not see this earlier. Progress is a continuum of a "birth" into and a subsequent "death" out of each stage and into the next. In line with the idea of infinitesimally finer and purer yet progressive "begottenings" and "births" into “sub-estates,” gender could have been introduced at any point along the way prior to stage 2 as well.

18 hours ago, Nofear said:

Another aspect upon which we disagree is to what extent exalted beings have control over their resurrected bodies. The idea that don't have any control makes no logical sense. I can alter my physical person quite a bit. It is within today's technology to modify my heart, skin color, face, and much more. With genetic alteration, I can even alter the very code that programs my physical body. That, that is possible even with our very limited understanding and capability. I see exalted beings as being capable of so very, very much more... if they wanted too. I don't say they do but only that they could. Even if an exalted being were pre-disposed to variation and change on a whim for change's sake, I would likely see him or her, over aeons of time, settling on a look and form and not changing much from that. Ability does not mean they do.

But, I most definitely believe they. exalted beings, have it within their power to adjust their bodies (physical and spirit) in profound and potentially complete ways. Others, disagree with me. That's fine. The question, for those that might share similarity with my position*, is whether or not "gender" is within the realm of "potentially complete ways" or gender outside of that realm? Part of the answer to that question is a clear sentiment about what, exactly, do we mean by gender and what does it mean to be an eternal principle. I personally answer the latter question by supposing that the male-female paradigm is one that the society of exalted beings "decided"** as being the most conducive to celestial society. But, I don't know why exactly and so I thought to ask if others had thoughts on the issue.

Can God lie? Why would an exalted Couple cease to be an exalted Couple by one of them changing gender and invalidating the marriage? Even swapping genders would require a dissolution and reinstatement of the covenant and its terms.

Gender is thus an essential characteristic (the term used in the Family Proclamation) expressed from the resurrection, and the resurrection carries the best of that which has been added upon from the beginning. This would include gender. At some point along the continuum of life progressing from the infinite past, gender becomes incorporated into the proper and perfect frame in one of the primordial “sub-estates” and is retained going forward just as our spirit moves forward in this estate and will continue to in the next spirit world and resurrected estates. But the resurrection still answers to all the stages where the proper and perfect frame gets built upon, and so for covenant purposes these characteristics, including gender, are fixed.

Edited October 15, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

36 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Sorry. I see words that make some sense to me and some I probably agree with. But, honestly, I have no good idea of what you are talking about. It's ok. That says more about me than you.

PS: Gravity doesn't "go" anywhere ... it just gets weaker. Technically we currently feel gravitational effects from stars billions of years away. Also, general relativity describes gravity immensely successfully. No flaw has yet be found. But general relativity doesn't even describe it in terms of force. We can simply describe behaviors that could be consistent with what we think of as a force with EM and the strong and weak forces.

Yet quantum mechanics reverts back to gravity being a force again, and this is where I'm coming from. As long as you hold to classical physics, you won't understand the terms I'm using. And if quantum and theoretical physics don't make sense to you, then my description won't either. NOTE: I'm not appealing to physics, just using it as a framework to tell a story.

Edited October 15, 2019 by CV75