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

[carbon dioxide]

On 10/12/2019 at 11:55 AM, Nofear said:

If an Exalted Being wants to change the physiological gender of their resurrected body, is that possible?

An exalted being is a being who has the same attributes of perfection like God the Father and Christ have.  Why would a perfect being attempt to change what they are to something else?  That would indicate a flaw in their perfection.  A perfect being has no hang ups nor confusion of what they are.  They accept reality.  It would also call God who resurrected that person a liar as God would know through his perfect knowledge what gender that person is.

Edited October 16, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[Ahab]

3 hours 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?

I think of any degree of glory as a degree of intelligence greater than the degree of intelligence we have in our innocent state (how Adam and Eve were before they fell), based on how the Holy Ghost has helped me to understand "the glory of God is intelligence" and Joseph's Smith's words when he said something about how the Holy Ghost has no other effect than pure intelligence.  So to me that means that when we feel pure intelligence, not corrupted by any false idea or misunderstanding on an issue, we are then "quickened" by a portion of that degree of intelligence which we refer to as celestial glory.  And I believe that without that degree of intelligence there are or would be some things we would just not understand correctly.

D&C 88 also mentions something about how we who are sometimes quickened by a portion of celestial glory in our mortal state will someday receive a fullness of that degree of glory as long as we remain qualified to receive it, also talking about why some people receive lesser degrees of glory.

Edited October 16, 2019 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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.

 

Exactly- and the reason we can do that and it is intellectually justified is the confusion language causes- it is straight pure Wittgensteinian philosophy and there are no justifiable arguments against thinking that way.  It's not that we are somehow deficient in our "theology" because we do not even bother with issues like- pardon the direct reference- "eternal gender"

If that is NOT a direct analogy to worrying about whether or not angelic "substance" can occupy the same space with other angelic substances, I don't know what is.

And of course that is the actual issue of importance of the "dancing on the head of a pin"- in the minds of the people who worried about such things- it was the nature of substance itself that was the "real" issue.  VERY similar I think to worrying about the nature of "refined matter" that we see regularly here or God's gender and the nature of his body.  I strongly recommend everything the Givens have written.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

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

Yes we often overlook that and not understanding the difference leads to huge confusions when speaking of LDS theology.

One can simply make the argument that God is immanent and leave it there or if one wants to give a nod to a blend of transcendence and immanence to make us sound more "Christian" one can simply argue that God is transcendent but self-determining- essentially that he voluntarily sacrifices his transcendent abilities "for the kids"- to be our Father.

I think the self determination argument gives us an opening to see it both ways at once if we want to- once one understands the difference between positive and negative liberty, as Isaiah Berlin did.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty

Under this perspective one could have the Transcendent God voluntarily giving up his freedom from constraints of any kind to first organize "natural law" and then taking it upon himself to always obey natural law.   

That makes the argument then that God is self-determined- ie that he is voluntarily determining his actions as a free decision he has made to limit his negative liberty to take on a more powerful positive liberty which also makes him part of a community, thereby giving a basis for constructing social truths.

But the basis of all these ways of thinking is produced by a solid foundation in Pragmatism.   I really noticed this 40 years ago in reading Mc Murrin and his criticisms of these Pragmatic trends in the church- and thinking "Hey wait a minute- this guy's wrong- but I really like this church he is trying to criticize!"

[Robert F. Smith]

43 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes we often overlook that and not understanding the difference leads to huge confusions when speaking of LDS theology.

One can simply make the argument that God is immanent and leave it there or if one wants to give a nod to a blend of transcendence and immanence to make us sound more "Christian" one can simply argue that God is transcendent but self-determining- essentially that he voluntarily sacrifices his transcendent abilities "for the kids"- to be our Father.

I think the self determination argument gives us an opening to see it both ways at once if we want to- once one understands the difference between positive and negative liberty, as Isaiah Berlin did.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty

Under this perspective one could have the Transcendent God voluntarily giving up his freedom from constraints of any kind to first organize "natural law" and then taking it upon himself to always obey natural law.   

That makes the argument then that God is self-determined- ie that he is voluntarily determining his actions as a free decision he has made to limit his negative liberty to take on a more powerful positive liberty which also makes him part of a community, thereby giving a basis for constructing social truths.

But the basis of all these ways of thinking is produced by a solid foundation in Pragmatism.   I really noticed this 40 years ago in reading Mc Murrin and his criticisms of these Pragmatic trends in the church- and thinking "Hey wait a minute- this guy's wrong- but I really like this church he is trying to criticize!"

Yes, and McMurrin himself ironically admired the LDS social structure.  He didn't believe the LDS theology, but his books gave it such a fair hearing that it was like reading a testimonial to the superiority of his fairy faith -- now abandoned.  I don't think he ever really stopped loving Mormonism.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

..............................  I strongly recommend everything the Givens have written.

Yes, and Fiona has such a lovely voice . . . 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

In consideration of the topic, what about transgendered states?

That is a this-worldly biological and emotional affect (not effect) which is only temporary.

[CV75]

19 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is a this-worldly biological and emotional affect (not effect) which is only temporary.

Thank you, even though that was my poor attempt at a joke...

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you, even though that was my poor attempt at a joke...

Yes, I thought you were being ironic.

[echelon]

While the Family Proclamation states 'Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose' it goes on to explain what that means in terms of the 'role' each gender has in that family unit.  It describes things both genders can do as parents, and it also specifies what each gender is responsible for.  There are many talks by church leaders that talk about what fathers/husbands/males and mothers/wives/females should be doing to fulfill their roles.  For that reason it seems to me that gender is designed by God as a way to organize roles in a society and then provide physiological and spiritual characteristic specific to the role for its effective fulfillment.

God organizes many things, intelligence, matter into world, 12 tribes of Israel, the church and all its offices, each with its purpose. Perhaps gender is yet one more organizational tool created by God and necessary for perfection in a society, even though it is possible for an individual to eventually possess all the unique attributes of each gender, the roles must be separated.

I would also like to think that I had a choice in the matter, otherwise how can I be happy in heaven in a role that I don't or didn't want?

 

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, echelon said:

I would also like to think that I had a choice in the matter, otherwise how can I be happy in heaven in a role that I don't or didn't want?

You.  Discovering you are alive. Wonder how you can be happy.  And then God tells you what you need to do to be happy.  And then you either believe him and do what he says, or you don't.

That is your choice.  That is the choice we all must make.  Discovering we are alive.   Wondering how we can be happy.  Need someone to tell us how that is accomplished.

And then we either do it, or we don't.