A gender related question

[Calm]

25 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

you read near death experiences, they see their loved was as they are and they don't describe them any different than with the same human forms they had while alive.

And that should actually alert people it may be more about expectations and assumptions as do we really think the person will look just as they did the day of their death, even if it has been ages since that death?  I am thinking of my husband’s grandmother who was afraid of dying because her husband wouldn’t recognize her since she no longer looked in her late 80’s as she looked in her mid 20’s when he died due to a heart defect.  Her husband appeared to her in the same form down to the clothes he was wearing and called her by name; thus she was reassured he would indeed know her.  Or that children who die and years later appear at the same age…are we locked into the form of what we were when we died?  If so, that is going to make for some awkward looking couples through eternity.  And how boring to have to wear the same clothing for eons.  What of the promise to have perfected bodies?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, I think both paradigms are irrelevant to anything important.

We cannot answer either way, so we should "remain silent".

Again it's like asking how many angels can fill the same space, or "dance on a pinhead".

 

 

Not sure if this was for me or narrator-- I'm so accustomed to being irrelevant I can't tell!  

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And that should actually alert people it may be more about expectations and assumptions as do we really think the person will look just as they did the day of their death, even if it has been ages since that death?  I am thinking of my husband’s grandmother who was afraid of dying because her husband wouldn’t recognize her since she no longer looked in her late 80’s as she looked in her mid 20’s when he died due to a heart defect.  Her husband appeared to her in the same form down to the clothes he was wearing and called her by name; thus she was reassured he would indeed know her.  Or that children who die and years later appear at the same age…are we locked into the form of what we were when we died?  If so, that is going to make for some awkward looking couples through eternity.  And how boring to have to wear the same clothing for eons.  What of the promise to have perfected bodies?

I think we will be as we are in our prime.  Not old or young.  Just the perfect, sweet spot

[CV75]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Okay, so you did say that unembodied non-biological spirits are gendered. Good to know I wasn't confused.

I am not saying that gender is biology alone. I'm saying that neither you nor anybody else here has offered one little bit of info as to what it means for a premortal spirit to be gendered--other than just shouting aloud and saying they are or comparing gender to a mere platonic state, which I find silly and nonsensical.

It depends. I think there's a nuance between what I said and what you're saying I said, given what you've posed as examples of "nonsensical" propositions.

I said nothing of a platonic state; you are reading into my posts. And I've said quite a bit about what it means for gender to be an essential characteristic of a premortal spirit, and it is not biology alone. Gender means something to a personage of spirit just as it means something to a mortal person; where you as a premortal spirit and you as a spirit in a mortal body overlap in gender experience and the meaning of that experience is something you need to come to grips with. Nobody is going to tell you how you experience gender.

Edited August 11, 2022 by CV75

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I think we will be as we are in our prime.  Not old or young.  Just the perfect, sweet spot

But what if we like change, like being young and like being older?  Why would only one age be the perfect sweet spot for the eternities to come?

Plus what does that mean for all the visions of loved dead ones who were children or seniors when seen?

What if we are acting as messengers for the Lord and the culture respects the elderly more than “in the prime of life” or rather old age is the prime of life for them?

Edited August 11, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, the narrator said:

Okay, so you did say that unembodied non-biological spirits are gendered. Good to know I wasn't confused.

I am not saying that gender is biology alone. I'm saying that neither you nor anybody else here has offered one little bit of info as to what it means for a premortal spirit to be gendered--other than just shouting aloud and saying they are or comparing gender to a mere platonic state, which I find silly and nonsensical.

I have said it is justified as part of a parable/ paradigm asserting that gender is part of who we are eternally, even if we don't know how it works.

Part of the standard Christian paradigm  includes similar beliefs like the resurrection, the existence of heaven and hell, virgin birth, etc and etc

We don't have the name or address of the prodigal son, nor any evidence that he ever "actually" lived, though his story is known by billions and billions have had their lives improved by the story whether or not it ever "happened"

It is justified AS a paradigm for the good it does.

The beliefs that humans have "rights" or that murder is "wrong" are also justified for the good they do in our lives, we say correctly that it is "true" that murder is wrong, and yet women have the right to an abortion ( to those who believe that) though some call that "murder". 

Neither of those positions/paradigms can be justified by science, yet there are intelligent and educated people on both sides.

Yet it is clear to everyone that science does not have the answer!

So how is the idea of gendered spirits less justifiable than the idea that a fetus is not human?

Is it "nonsense" to believe either a fetus is human or not human?

What could justify either position?  And yet either choice may have vast consequences for humanity, far more than spiritual genitals.  

Both are matters of "con-science" but not "science"

And yet why are we arguing AS IF one is justified and the other is not?

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Not sure if this was for me or narrator-- I'm so accustomed to being irrelevant I can't tell!  

Oh my!

I have been doing that lately! I respond to the words and mess up on who said them! It was for whoever said this:

"Did I misread you? Are you not saying here that premortal, unembodied spirts are gendered? Or is it my addition of "sexed" that bothers you here?"

[CV75]

18 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

No, I think both paradigms are irrelevant to anything important.

We cannot answer either way, so we should "remain silent".

Again it's like asking how many angels can fill the same space, or "dance on a pinhead".

 

 

Hi Mark, I think you need to direct your posts to @the narrator

[Risingtide]

On 8/7/2022 at 2:25 PM, Fether said:

“Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

Are chromosomes a perfect way of figuring out what a person’s true and intended physical gender is?

I don't think it's necessary to to look for chromosomal evidence to determine a persons gender. The vast majority of persons are born with  outward signs of their gender. Any five year old can tell if someone is male or female , unless they grew up with a house filled with confusion. 

[Fether]

18 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

I don't think it's necessary to to look for chromosomal evidence to determine a persons gender. The vast majority of persons are born with  outward signs of their gender. Any five year old can tell if someone is male or female , unless they grew up with a house filled with confusion. 

But what about the rare times it isn’t obvious. Intersex is a real thing

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

Gender means something to a personage of spirit just as it means something to a mortal person

So what does it mean?

[the narrator]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So how is the idea of gendered spirits less justifiable than the idea that a fetus is not human?

Is it "nonsense" to believe either a fetus is human or not human?

This is going to side track, but the question per fetuses isn't about whether one is human but rather whether a fetus is a person--and I would argue that how persons use the term "person" never applies to unborn fetuses except in abortion debates where (like notions of gendered premortal spirits) the claim is shouted but never actually explained. (If a person were in a burning fertility clinic and only able to choose between saving an adult woman or a tray of a hundred embryos, nobody (besides some religious crazies) would think it better to save the embryos over the adult woman.)

[the narrator]

This has run it's course for me, so I'm bowing out.

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, the narrator said:

This is going to side track, but the question per fetuses isn't about whether one is human but rather whether a fetus is a person--and I would argue that how persons use the term "person" never applies to unborn fetuses except in abortion debates where (like notions of gendered premortal spirits) the claim is shouted but never actually explained. (If a person were in a burning fertility clinic and only able to choose between saving an adult woman or a tray of a hundred embryos, nobody (besides some religious crazies) would think it better to save the embryos over the adult woman.)

This should not be a poll of the usage of the term "person" vs "human".

In Radical Orthodoxy, Secular Theology, and Radical Empiricism such a usage is fully justified, yet I agree that quite obviously one would save the women before the embryos, but not because of a dictionary definition.

And of course even the church recognizes that abortion is justified in cases where the life of the mother is in peril, which implies to me that Dr. Nelson, MD and Prophet would save the women before the embryos.   I guess I am missing your point.

I think this is going to be a hot book at least to those who understand the concept, but I do not agree with its "Doctrine":

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_orthodoxy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_theology#:~:text=Secular theology rejects the substance,and not separately from it.

 

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

If folks hereabouts are tired of my Rorty quotes ( who isn't?)  check this out- it's a good summary of my position, which now others are "inventing".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_theology#:~:text=Secular theology rejects the substance,and not separately from it.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Hi Mark, I think you need to direct your posts to @the narrator

I agree and I apologize- now that @the narrator has left the building, if it is still relevant, would you please fix it for me? 😘  

I am working on a paper with a deadline and I am clearly not making much progress with my time here, and I think by now he has read my comment on what he wrote, if it even matters! 😥

 

 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, the narrator said:

So what does it mean?

Here is what I suggest: make a list describing your personal experience with gender. That way I can use your language and we can go from there.

[manol]

On 8/10/2022 at 6:51 PM, Calm said:

I could now start speculating in a completely different way, that our spirits merely communicate with our physical bodies but exist elsewhere and that is why adult spirits can ‘occupy’ baby bodies or a spirit can be perfectly formed, but their physical body lacking parts or having less than perfect ones...

Which brings me back to gender/sex…how that works is going to be all speculation imo as the most revelation we have received on the subject imo is there is a correspondence, but if it is corresponding form with form or emotional and/or mental attributes with physical form or most likely imo, both and likely more aspects of our spiritual being we lack awareness of and words for, who actually knows?

Where I'm going to go in this post isn't where your focus was, but the idea that "our spirits [or aspects thereof]... exist elsewhere" is imo a most interesting one, even if we ultimately end up back at "who actually knows?"   The reason I think excursions down such rabbit holes can be useful is because we cannot believe that which we cannot even conceive as being possible, so as an exercise let's try expanding our hypothetical boundaries of "what's possible".   Like the cave explorer with a rope around her or his waist, we still have our intellect and the Spirit to pull us back if we run into danger.  On the other hand if we DO come across something useful, some viewpoint which serves our highest intentions at this time, then the exploration may have been more than just idle entertainment.

There are two lines of thinking I'm aware of which suggest the possibility of our spirits, or at least a substantial portion or aspect of our spirits, actually existing elsewhere, while this aspect of which we are consciously aware is existing/participating here on a Telestial-level world.  One such line of thinking is old, and the other is new:

The traditional Hawaiian thought system includes a belief in a Higher Self called the "Aumakua".  Briefly, the Aumakua is not only elsewhere but is also a shared Higher Self, sort of like branches may share the same vine, or body parts may share the same body, to borrow a couple of New Testament metaphors.  Here is a description of the Aumakua, cut-and-pasted from the website livinginhawaii.com:

• The high self appears to be comparable to Freud’s super-ego in that it knows the rules that were learned over time and is like the parent in that it looks at all the selves or minds and takes into consideration all the information before acting or making decisions.
• This higher self lives at a higher plane of consciousness that is said to exist outside of the limitations of the physical body.
• It will not intervene in the day to day life of the individual unless asked to do so.
• Not interfering until being asked appears to be a cosmic law that the high self must follow.
• This mind or self expresses all the divine qualities like compassion, patience, love, forgiveness
• Considered to be a combined community of spirits
• Considered to be a perfect blending of masculine and feminine, an androgynous self.
• Considered to have individual identity and be a blending of all other high selves at the same time. Interconnected consciousness.

I don't have anything to add to this - imo this description speaks for itself quite well. 

What might make traditional Hawaiian beliefs of some interest in the context of Mormon thought is the possibility that the Hawaiians are among the descendants of Hagoth's expedition (Alma 63:5-8). 

Near death experiencers sometimes report experiencing a oneness with a shared higher self or even a oneness with "all that is" which imo is not inconsistent with the Aumakua concept.

The other, newer line of thinking which speculates that "we" may actually be "elsewhere" is the idea that this world is a simulation.  This is fascinating to me because it's almost like a quasi-spirituality paradigm which is plausible to the likes of Elon Musk and Neil deGrasse Tyson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmcrG7ZZKUc).  If we look at the increasing realism of video game starting with Pong fifty years ago, and then extrapolate that trend forward for a million years or a billion years or whatever, the creation of virtual reality "games" which are indistinguishable from reality is quite plausible.  Looking through the lens of what we know about video games, we would expect a simulation to be pixelated; to have a refresh rate; and to have a beginning.   The pixel size would be the Planck length; the refresh rate would be the Planck time; and the beginning of the simulation would be the Big Bang.

Where my own version of this paradigm diverges from Musk and Tyson is this:  I would characterize us as the existing-outside-the-simulation "players of the game", rather than as "non-player characters" or "lines of code" existing only within the simulation.   My argument to Musk and Tyson would go something like this:  Given that immersive EXPERIENCE is more interesting and productive than watching a simulation, it makes more sense that advanced beings would create a PARTICIPATORY simulation, like an interactive indistinguishable-from-reality "game", rather than a hyper-realistic simulation which simply runs on its own. 

We have no way of knowing whether this paradigm (or something similar) is "true", but if we take Elon Musk's focus (saving humanity) and accomplishments (which are intended to serve that end) as an example, then the concept of this world being a simulation is arguably a "tree" which can bear "good fruit".  

Looking at the "this is a simulation" idea through an LDS-tinted lens, we might see the simulation as a "test"; we might see our unawareness of having existence outside of the simulation as "the Veil"; and we might see the seemingly quasi-random (and unfair!) conditions and events of our existences as being the particular challenges selected by each player for the character he or she is playing as, all ultimately working together for our good.  In this scenario, how we play our role arguably matters more than "how important" that role appears to be from within the simulation (something implied by David O. McKay's embracing of the wisdom engraved on the walls of Sterling Castle in Scotland:  "What 'er thou art, act well thy part").  Note also that in the Temple the idea that our "real name" (or "real names") is (are) actually something other than the name we go by during our Earth life is not only introduced, it comes up as an important part of the endowment ceremony more than once... implying that "who or what we really are" is more than "who or what we seem to be". 

To the best of my knowledge none of the above can be objectively proven, but if any of it can serve our highest intentions for now, then it arguably has utility.  

Edited August 13, 2022 by manol

[Risingtide]

22 hours ago, Fether said:

But what about the rare times it isn’t obvious. Intersex is a real thing

I agree some are born biologically indeterminate, but such cases are exceedingly rare, and shouldn't be used as a basis for broad sweeping social policy. The vast majority who claim transgender status are clearly male or female. 

[Tacenda]

59 minutes ago, Risingtide said:

I agree some are born biologically indeterminate, but such cases are exceedingly rare, and shouldn't be used as a basis for broad sweeping social policy. The vast majority who claim transgender status are clearly male or female. 

Is 1 in 1000 rare? Asking seriously. https://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/news/20190503/study-about-1-in-1000-babies-born-intersex

Oops, answered my own question:

What is considered rare statistically?

 

 

In the United States, the Rare Diseases Act of 2002 defines rare disease strictly according to prevalence, specifically "any disease or condition that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States", or about 1 in 1,500 people.

Edited August 13, 2022 by Tacenda

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Risingtide said:

I agree some are born biologically indeterminate, but such cases are exceedingly rare, and shouldn't be used as a basis for broad sweeping social policy. The vast majority who claim transgender status are clearly male or female. 

Yes.  The vast majority of transgender make their claim simply based on a identity.  They are not any different than the guy who was at my wife work recently claiming to be Jesus.  He identified as Jesus.  Great.  That did not make him Jesus. 

Edited August 13, 2022 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

On 8/12/2022 at 8:29 AM, Risingtide said:

I don't think it's necessary to to look for chromosomal evidence to determine a persons gender. The vast majority of persons are born with  outward signs of their gender. Any five year old can tell if someone is male or female , unless they grew up with a house filled with confusion. 

One can look at the bone structure as well. If one finds a bunch of bones of a dead person in the desert, one can determine from the bones if the person is male or female. 

[Fether]

2 hours ago, Risingtide said:

I agree some are born biologically indeterminate, but such cases are exceedingly rare, and shouldn't be used as a basis for broad sweeping social policy. The vast majority who claim transgender status are clearly male or female. 

I’m not asking about broad sweeping social policy… or even a little social policy. I’m just asking how a parent could figure out the gender of a child in this situation.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

I’m not asking about broad sweeping social policy… or even a little social policy. I’m just asking how a parent could figure out the gender of a child in this situation.

It depends upon the resources they have at their disposal, and whether they are attempting to identify the biological sex at birth or the eternal identity.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, Risingtide said:

I agree some are born biologically indeterminate, but such cases are exceedingly rare, and shouldn't be used as a basis for broad sweeping social policy. The vast majority who claim transgender status are clearly male or female. 

You do realize that there are far more people born intersex then they are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Does that make being a member of the Church unimportant and dismissive??