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

[longview]

11 minutes ago, Nofear said:

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.

Would it be helpful to note that the female brain/mind/thinking is quite distinct from the male's?  Women have many more inter-hemispheric connections in the brain than men's.  Women are better able to see a more complicated picture with inter relating elements and time considerations and consequences, etc.  Men tend to focus in a more linear path to the "best solution" and react more decisively.  Not to say that either is lacking what the other has, it is manifested to varying degrees.  But the "cleaving together" (meshing) of the man and woman is far greater than the sum of the parts.  Which makes the "basic unit" more viable than every other kinds of relationships.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

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.

But we define "good" or "best" by what works. Righteousness works for a reason, and so we call it "Righteous "

Following laws makes life in society easier. It makes for a more peaceful life. And so these traits of law following we define as a good life.

I see the Ten Commandments as being perfectly pragmatic in this way giving us the outline of what constitutes a peaceful and easy life.

And this is yet another reason to see the world in a utilitarian, to use your word, or to me, a Pragmatic approach. 

We can make up our paradigms which is I think would you call an explanatory approach, making up stories about what is behind it all but ultimately by definition Pragmatism just works.

Take String Theory which is an explanatory approach. Who knows how long any paradigm or explanation will hold up?  Is Pluto a planet this week?

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23PlutoLoversRejoice&src=typeahead_click

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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

Are you equating intellectual maturity with spiritual maturity?  I said nothing about intellectual immaturity.  I suppose there is some connection between the two different terms, though.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

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.

What further explanation do you need other than what you have already been given, which you can see for yourself actually works?  We know what it takes for people to reproduce and as far as we have any evidence it has always worked the same way.  At the core basic level it is all about parts of a man combining with parts of a woman and then voila!... another person has been reproduced from a specific man and a specific woman we refer to as parents.

So the "why" for why it happens this way is because this is the method that actually works.  2 men can't reproduce to create a child together and 2 women can't do it either.  It takes both a man and a woman to make it work.  To imagine there is some other way, not involving either a man or a woman, is just not going to work to actually get it done.

[Nofear]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

We don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet. Probably will in the future. Nor do I hold to classical physics. That isn't the reason I don't understand what you are saying. It really is just a bunch of gobbley-gook gibberish to me. Doesn't mean it's wrong. Just means I have no idea what you are talking about. Don't fret it. Like I said, says more about me than you. /shrug

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

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. 

Of course you can and that is YOUR interpretation without facts, your "explanation", which is perfectly justifiable because we don't have facts about God. We make up the story that suits us best: the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, but more often usually mangled by scripture.

We are here to live by faith and the spirit.

But why does it work?

Because what works was designed by God to work OR we DEFINE what works as therefore designed by God.

That's the difference between theism and atheism. And we choose the difference depending on whether or not we have felt the spirit.

If we have felt the spirit, we know there is Something Else Beyond Us out there, which makes all the difference and what explanation we decide is "correct".

Did God create us or did we create God? Only the spirit can answer that one. 

 Then knowing there is Something Else Beyond we make up the explanation.

 I happen to believe that the LDS explanation is the one that works the best.

I am certain of that after many spiritual experiences, and that is why I am LDS.

Edited October 15, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But we define "good" or "best" by what works. Righteousness works for a reason, and so we call it "Righteous "

Following laws makes life in society easier. It makes for a more peaceful life. And so these traits of law following we define as a good life.

I see the Ten Commandments as being perfectly pragmatic in this way giving us the outline of what constitutes a peaceful and easy life.

And this is yet another reason to see the world in a utilitarian, to use your word, or to me, a Pragmatic approach. 

We can make up our paradigms which is I think would you call an explanatory approach, making up stories about what is behind it all but ultimately by definition Pragmatism just works.

Take String Theory which is an explanatory approach. Who knows how long any paradigm or explanation will hold up?  Is Pluto a planet this week?

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23PlutoLoversRejoice&src=typeahead_click

Uh oh, you might indeed get some hate from this members on this board if you suggest God's good is utilitarian (but not from me). We mortals, however, are merely deontological owing to our limited perspectives.

[CV75]

6 minutes ago, Nofear said:

We don't have a theory of quantum gravity yet.

There's a book about it (The Order of Time, Carlo Rovellli). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli

No worries.

Here's another book by the same physicist, which I haven't read yet: Quantum Gravity (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics)

[Ahab]

21 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Uh oh, you might indeed get some hate from this members on this board if you suggest God's good is utilitarian (but not from me). We mortals, however, are merely deontological owing to our limited perspectives.

I suppose you are aware there are 2 different goals or options.  It is a choice between good and evil, and we who want to please God believe in doing things God's way rather than going with our other option.

The path to evil is just as utilitarian and deontologically biased as the other option, though.  If someone wants to be evil, doing as they please even though it is opposed to God's way, they can do that and be just as perfectly evil as his or her opponent is perfectly good.

 

[Nofear]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There's a book about it (The Order of Time, Carlo Rovellli). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Rovelli

No worries.

Here's another book by the same physicist, which I haven't read yet: Quantum Gravity (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics)

There are people whose entire research efforts are on quantum gravity. There are ideas and frameworks (and books). But there is no functional theory yet. But this disagreement and our back and forth by and large is completely tangent to the topic of the thread (and it brings out the not-nice-me, though, to be fair, I was accused of restraining my thinking to classical physics -- well, them there's fightin' words :D).

Edited October 15, 2019 by Nofear

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Uh oh, you might indeed get some hate from this members on this board if you suggest God's good is utilitarian (but not from me). We mortals, however, are merely deontological owing to our limited perspectives.

Which are all we have, including "spiritual"

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

There are people whose entire research efforts are on quantum gravity. There are ideas and frameworks (and books). But there is no functional theory yet. But this disagreement and our back and forth by and large is completely tangent to the topic of the thread (and it brings out the not-nice-me, though, to be fair, I was accused of restraining my thinking to classical physics -- well, them there's fightin' words :D).

Agreed--but to conceptualize a model (such as I am doing) does not require uniform agreement on a theory; the concept of quantum gravity, whether you agree with it or not, and its application to the topic of the thread, is the same. I wanted to discuss it that way rather than come across as picking apart and refuting your ideas directly, since I took it to be a theoretical discussion. I don't like to approach another's ideas that way. So, I'll try something new: how about instead we go with. "Your ideas need refining!"

So regardless of whether you want to consider the idea of quantum gravity or not:

First, you have parsed eternal progression into four stages with gender assigned (whether through mutual agreement with heavenly parents or by their divine decree) in stage 2. But eternal progression falls along a continuum, allowing for gender characteristics to be added upon the individual at any point before stage 2, between stage 1 and stage 2, sometime during stage 2, or even at some point between stage 2 and birth. Alma 13 (the premortal foreordaining of high priests) allows for that.

Second, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." It is not an eternal principle. As such, its basis is matter/material whether one holds that eternal principles can be comprised of pure and fine matter or not. The qualitative attributes you mentioned in the first bullets are not essential. How often are we encouraged to arrive at perfection by ensuring we prioritize and have the essentials in place -- as God does completely. I would not place gender in this more qualitative ancillary category to an essential characteristic.

Third, one feature of an essential characteristic is that you have one side of the opposition or you don't. The opposite of gendered in not "non-gendered" once you have it, but it is each of the two opposing sexes. The opposite of covenant is not-covenant; baptism is not-baptism; there are no gradients or continua. This is reserved for the afterlife kingdoms of glory, where the glory is not related to getting  none, some or all of the covenants.

 

Edited October 15, 2019 by CV75

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Agreed--but to conceptualize a model (such as I am doing) does not require uniform agreement on a theory; the concept of quantum gravity, whether you agree with it or not, and its application to the topic of the thread, is the same. I wanted to discuss it that way rather than come across as picking apart and refuting your ideas directly, since I took it to be a theoretical discussion. I don't like to approach another's ideas that way. So, I'll try something new: how about instead we go with. "Your ideas need refining!"

So regardless of whether you want to consider the idea of quantum gravity or not:

First, you have parsed eternal progression into four stages with gender assigned (whether through mutual agreement with heavenly parents or by their divine decree) in stage 2. But eternal progression falls along a continuum, allowing for gender characteristics to be added upon the individual at any point before stage 2, between stage 1 and stage 2, sometime during stage 2, or even at some point between stage 2 and birth. Alma 13 (the premortal foreordaining of high priests) allows for that.

Second, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." It is not an eternal principle. As such, its basis is matter/material whether one holds that eternal principles can be comprised of pure and fine matter or not. The qualitative attributes you mentioned in the first bullets are not essential. How often are we encouraged to arrive at perfection by ensuring we prioritize and have the essentials in place -- as God does completely. I would not place gender in this more qualitative ancillary category to an essential characteristic.

Third, one feature of an essential characteristic is that you have one side of the opposition or you don't. The opposite of gendered in not "non-gendered" once you have it, but it is each of the two opposing sexes. The opposite of covenant is not-covenant; baptism is not-baptism; there are no gradients or continua. This is reserved for the afterlife kingdoms of glory, where the glory is not related to getting  none, some or all of the covenants.

 

I like the way you said this, except for your typo: The opposite of gendered in not "non-gendered" once you have it, but it is each of the two opposing sexes.

And I also like that you mentioned this in connection to your ideas: Second, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

I'm not clear on my understanding of some of the other things you said but from what I gathered it appears that if gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose,  as some people have said, then at the moment we were created as a child of our heavenly parents we had a gender since that is an essential characteristic of (our) eternal identity and purpose.  We were either a he or a she at that moment, whether or not our gender is or ever will be changed to some other gender.

I'm of the opinion that once we are a he or a she we will always be that same gender even if our mortal body is changed to look like the opposite of that sex, but each to our own ideas.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Agreed--but to conceptualize a model (such as I am doing) does not require uniform agreement on a theory; the concept of quantum gravity, whether you agree with it or not, and its application to the topic of the thread, is the same. I wanted to discuss it that way rather than come across as picking apart and refuting your ideas directly, since I took it to be a theoretical discussion. I don't like to approach another's ideas that way. So, I'll try something new: how about instead we go with. "Your ideas need refining!"

So regardless of whether you want to consider the idea of quantum gravity or not:

First, you have parsed eternal progression into four stages with gender assigned (whether through mutual agreement with heavenly parents or by their divine decree) in stage 2. But eternal progression falls along a continuum, allowing for gender characteristics to be added upon the individual at any point before stage 2, between stage 1 and stage 2, sometime during stage 2, or even at some point between stage 2 and birth. Alma 13 (the premortal foreordaining of high priests) allows for that.

Second, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." It is not an eternal principle. As such, its basis is matter/material whether one holds that eternal principles can be comprised of pure and fine matter or not. The qualitative attributes you mentioned in the first bullets are not essential. How often are we encouraged to arrive at perfection by ensuring we prioritize and have the essentials in place -- as God does completely. I would not place gender in this more qualitative ancillary category to an essential characteristic.

Third, one feature of an essential characteristic is that you have one side of the opposition or you don't. The opposite of gendered in not "non-gendered" once you have it, but it is each of the two opposing sexes. The opposite of covenant is not-covenant; baptism is not-baptism; there are no gradients or continua. This is reserved for the afterlife kingdoms of glory, where the glory is not related to getting  none, some or all of the covenants.

 

In our equations we forgot to carry the 1 on step 386 4-B.

Oops.

Edited October 15, 2019 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

In our equations we forgot to carry the 1 on step 386 4-B.

Oops.

Oh yes, thank you!

By correcting this oversight, we can clearly see that:

(Between Second and Third) An exalted Couple would cease to be an exalted Couple by one of them changed gender thus breaking and invalidating the marriage covenant. Even the two consensually swapping genders would require a dissolution and reinstatement of the covenant and its terms, which would be taboo.

(Fourth) The resurrection carries the best of that which has been added upon from the beginning in each sub-estate and stage of eternal progression, including gender from the point at which it was first expressed. The successive proper and perfect frames in the primordial “sub-estates” are retained going forward, and the resurrection answers to all the proper and perfect stages upon which the final proper and perfect frame is built upon and where covenant and other essential characteristics, including gender, are fixed.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Oh yes, thank you!

By correcting this oversight, we can clearly see that:

(Between Second and Third) An exalted Couple would cease to be an exalted Couple by one of them changed gender thus breaking and invalidating the marriage covenant. Even the two consensually swapping genders would require a dissolution and reinstatement of the covenant and its terms, which would be taboo.

(Fourth) The resurrection carries the best of that which has been added upon from the beginning in each sub-estate and stage of eternal progression, including gender from the point at which it was first expressed. The successive proper and perfect frames in the primordial “sub-estates” are retained going forward, and the resurrection answers to all the proper and perfect stages upon which the final proper and perfect frame is built upon and where covenant and other essential characteristics, including gender, are fixed.

Well of course I was joking but dang it- this makes good sense to me!

That last paragraph sounds like evolution and I have no problem with that.    I do not mix science with religion, that is, to me, like trying to confuse hockey with basketball and saying that they conflict with each other.

[Nofear]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Second, "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." It is not an eternal principle. As such, its basis is matter/material whether one holds that eternal principles can be comprised of pure and fine matter or not. The qualitative attributes you mentioned in the first bullets are not essential. How often are we encouraged to arrive at perfection by ensuring we prioritize and have the essentials in place -- as God does completely. I would not place gender in this more qualitative ancillary category to an essential characteristic.

I also quite agree that gender is an essential aspect. The only real reason I see is "because that is how God and our species does it". I'm quite ok with that. Still leaves some questions, but I don't have them and it seems others here don't (at least not ones that speak to me).

Anyway, I have to be off to a funeral for several days and so I shan't be in a position to respond.

 

PS: Though I spoke harshly as to you and science, do note that I generally find your comments insightful to useful. One of the posters I respect and pay attention to.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well of course I was joking but dang it- this makes good sense to me!

That last paragraph sounds like evolution and I have no problem with that.    I do not mix science with religion, that is, to me, like trying to confuse hockey with basketball and saying that they conflict with each other.

I was kind of joking too...

Yes, I am just using the science as a metaphor but I guess that doesn't float too well for everyone.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Nofear said:

I also quite agree that gender is an essential aspect. The only real reason I see is "because that is how God and our species does it". I'm quite ok with that. Still leaves some questions, but I don't have them and it seems others here don't (at least not ones that speak to me).

Anyway, I have to be off to a funeral for several days and so I shan't be in a position to respond.

 

PS: Though I spoke harshly as to you and science, do note that I generally find your comments insightful to useful. One of the posters I respect and pay attention to.

Thank you, I hope your next few days go well. As noted above, I am just using the science as a metaphor or comparison. Some people prefer Bilbo Baggins but I'm not so sure what a hobbit's gender is, especially that closing shot of Frodo in the last movie: 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/14/2019 at 3:52 AM, Calm said:

Do we know for sure preexistence spirits were in the Celestial Kingdom?

One problem which occurs to me now is that the Holy Ghost is a God in the full sense of the word, yet is unembodied.  How could the Holy Ghost not be in a Celestial state in the pre-existence, and does the same apply to the unembodied Yahweh/Jehovah at the very same time?  Was the Garden of Eden Temple in a Celestial state?  Were Adam & Eve in a Celelstial state in the Garden?  Does that Celestial condition extend back into our pre-mortal existence?

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

One problem which occurs to me now is that the Holy Ghost is a God in the full sense of the word, yet is unembodied.  How could the Holy Ghost not be in a Celestial state in the pre-existence, and does the same apply to the unembodied Yahweh/Jehovah at the very same time?  Was the Garden of Eden Temple in a Celestial state?  Were Adam & Eve in a Celelstial state in the Garden?  Does that Celestial condition extend back into our pre-mortal existence?

"Celestial" seems to legitimately mean all kinds of things (context). I think as long as a spirit is in the presence of God in an un-quickened state, that is one type of celestial kingdom. In the quickened state, another type. Moses and other prophets, when quickened, were in a celestial kingdom when speaking with the Lord. just not The Celestial Kingdom of D&C 76, which is a post-resurrection kingdom.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

"Celestial" seems to legitimately mean all kinds of things (context). I think as long as a spirit is in the presence of God in an un-quickened state, that is one type of celestial kingdom. In the quickened state, another type. Moses and other prophets, when quickened, were in a celestial kingdom when speaking with the Lord. just not The Celestial Kingdom of D&C 76, which is a post-resurrection kingdom.

Yes, we should include transfigured states, as on the Mount of Transfiguration and other Scrptural instances.  Those would clearly be Celestial states, even if temporary.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/15/2019 at 9:14 AM, mfbukowski said:

But we define "good" or "best" by what works. Righteousness works for a reason, and so we call it "Righteous "

Following laws makes life in society easier. It makes for a more peaceful life. And so these traits of law following we define as a good life.

I see the Ten Commandments as being perfectly pragmatic in this way giving us the outline of what constitutes a peaceful and easy life.

And this is yet another reason to see the world in a utilitarian, to use your word, or to me, a Pragmatic approach. 

We can make up our paradigms which is I think would you call an explanatory approach, making up stories about what is behind it all but ultimately by definition Pragmatism just works.

Take String Theory which is an explanatory approach. Who knows how long any paradigm or explanation will hold up?  Is Pluto a planet this week?

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23PlutoLoversRejoice&src=typeahead_click 

I took note of this same Mormon tendency to deal with exotic theological questions by moving toward pragmatism during a conversation between Terryl Givens and Rosalynde Welch, both brilliant PhDs who have had a lot to say about Mormon theology.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McBpJ8kaqxo .  I have never met either of these stellar thinkers, but have been admiring them for years.  At one point, Givens asks a penetrating theological question, and Welch parries with a completely orthopractic reply -- demonstrating yet again that Mormons live their religion by raising their families and ministering to their neighbors, not by trying to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/14/2019 at 5:03 PM, mfbukowski said:

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

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

Yes, Rosalynde Welch also emphasized the immanence of God in her life, but in a practical sense.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, we should include transfigured states, as on the Mount of Transfiguration and other Scrptural instances.  Those would clearly be Celestial states, even if temporary.

In consideration of the topic, what about transgendered states?