Three "truths"?


askandanswer
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am obviously not understanding your terms or the very long explanation which seems to avoid the specific problem I am trying to address.  Please explain what you mean by "deficiency of gender". 

 

Also there are other concepts that confuse me a little from your explanation.  Do you believe gender is physical and not spiritual?   Is there is anything spiritual to be attached to gender - could you please explain your view on pre physical spiritual gender?

 

Also it appears to me that you are saying that we will all be resurrected to G-d's physical body - that in the resurrection we inherit his body which has no "deficiency of gender" .  Am I understanding you correctly or do I need to better understand what you mean by "one" body?  Do you mean "one" body like in a marriage a man and a woman become "one" flesh or do you mean one body that does not differentiate gender?   Or do we in essence inherit all G-d has in regards to purpose - not physical presents or gender? 

 

I am trying to understand what you are saying to me.  Because I am dyslexic sometimes I interpret things backwards so I have to ask questions to be sure I got your point - I think you are saying we symbolically inherit all of G-d's purpose but I am trying to determine if  your definition of all goes beyond sysmoblism and that it is possible that we can go to the extreme and realize that we actually get everything G-d has - including his gender and his body?

Part of the vague description is because we don't know the details.  So, I don't know entirely.  What I know is that we will maintain our gender identity in the next life.  For those few that have eternal marriage, there will be a special bond between one male and one female.  Speaking of that bond specifically, there is no gender lacking within that bond, there is both a male and a female.  There is no deficiency of either one.  It is required of us to be in the bonds of eternal marriage to be like God.  I am assuming then that God exists in the same type of bond, a male and female together type bond, the type of bond that is not just male or not just female, there is no deficiency of gender.

 

Identity and conectiveness can be two different things.  I think the limit of our understanding is based in the limit of our charity.  To have true love of Christ one would have to know the person intimately.  To know someone at that level is the same as knowing them as self, almost as if they were self (Charity and the second most important commandment).  That is not to say that one could not draw the line between self and others or that the person physically becomes one with the other but that there is no separation of mine vs theirs.  Like I asked in the other thread, is there anything you can think of that you can hide from God, any experience, any thought, any proprietary anything?  Even as a woman, could I hide what it is like to bear children from God?  Could I hide a female trait from God?  If you say no, then you believe it is possible to experience both genders as if self.  If you say yes it can be hidden, then you would have to believe that God is not all knowing, that there is a limitation or a deficiency based in gender, for example. I am saying I don't believe there is a deficiency based in gender, both genders are represented in God as God has to be in an eternal marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll grant it may be a misunderstanding. But your views are...well...I put it in another thread...somewhat borg-ish.

There are a lot of examples of how people view our religion through worldly eyes and through the twisting of something good into something bad.  How many times do we get called a cult?  It may be that our religion sounds cult-ish but we know that to not be true. It may sound like our religion is racist-ish but we know that to not be true.  We are sometimes told that our religion is sexist-ish but we know that is not true. Maybe the united order sounds communist-ish.  Not sure what your point is to say that it sounds borg-ish other than to try to paint it as negative when you can't give specifics as to why it is negative.

 

Is it negative that God can know our every thought and that we can't hide anything from Him?  Is it negative that Jesus could experience the pain of our sins?  Is it bizarre that He could do such a thing? A little, but that doesn't make it negative.  Is it negative to try to feel what others feel, to mourn with those that mourn etc?  If those things are not negative then don't paint it with a negative spin.  It is not a bad thing to enjoy the successes of others as if they were our own.  If it were not so then Jesus could not be our mediator, we could not enjoy His success on our behalf.  He did it for us as if it was us and paid our debt as if we paid it to God directly.  The price for that is to become one with Christ which is not a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of examples of how people view our religion through worldly eyes and through the twisting of something good into something bad.  How many times do we get called a cult?  It may be that our religion sounds cult-ish but we know that to not be true. It may sound like our religion is racist-ish but we know that to not be true.  We are sometimes told that our religion is sexist-ish but we know that is not true. Maybe the united order sounds communist-ish.  Not sure what your point is to say that it sounds borg-ish other than to try to paint it as negative when you can't give specifics as to why it is negative.

 

You inference of the seeing all things/knowing all things, etc., to my thinking, translates into a weird sounding hive-mind collective in the way you express it. It's not bad. It's just the way I read what you express. Calling it borg is only to be silly, not critical. If I have a criticism of your views, it's only that you presume things as factual that we don't know to be factual. You have a point of view...fine...and you express it as the obvious clear absolute proper view...not fine.

 

I don't deny that your view is a possibility. I don't call it bad or evil (in spite of the borg joke...which was really more to use the emoticon than anything). I do not agree with it, however, partly because it is doing just as you say (though you cannot seem to see it) by applying mortal perception to immortality.

 

Generally I tend towards the "we don't know" point of view on what the Celestial existence will be like, because the fact is just that. All the rest is speculative. I do find it slightly problematic to express speculative ideas as if theyr'e factual -- something I find you and traveler both guilty of in many of your debates. (And, just to be clear and fair, I'm sure I'm guilty in times past as well).

 

I do seem to have a stronger perception of roles and individuality in the eternities than you (per my understanding of your view...which, as I said, I may well misunderstand). I do not think becoming "one" means what you think it does. I see your approach as odd. But that is not to say it is wrong. I am, as you are, only speculating. Because we really don't know. The existence of an exalted being is so far beyond our capability to grasp that any description of it falls flat to me.

 

To be clear, I think the female role in the eternities will be to bear and raise spirit children and that the male role will be to create universes for them. I do not think both these things are equally shared duties any more than I feel the roles we have in this life are equally shared duties. I do not believe that we will be "equal" any more than we are "equal" now...not because of capability, worth, or unequal joy, but because we (the genders) will find the fullness of our joy in different ways due to the eternal nature and character of our gender.

 

It makes no sense to me, whatsoever, (and I find it a "wacky" concept to push) that inheriting all the Father has is 100% literal. Just as if I inherit all my worldly father has, I may get his money, his house, his intelligence, his propensity to prostate problems, etc. But my sister does not become my daughter, and my mother does not become my wife. I become as my father is. I don't become my father.

 

However, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe "all" means "all". Literally. All. And we'll all be married to everybody, be everybody's father, mother, sister, and brother, all will be women and all well be men, all create all the worlds together, all raise all spirit children created by all other exalted beings, and when one of us is communicating with their children, all the other billions upon billion of other beings exalted throughout the eons are right there with us giving the same communication.

 

Maybe.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the vague description is because we don't know the details.  So, I don't know entirely.  What I know is that we will maintain our gender identity in the next life.  For those few that have eternal marriage, there will be a special bond between one male and one female.  Speaking of that bond specifically, there is no gender lacking within that bond, there is both a male and a female.  There is no deficiency of either one.  It is required of us to be in the bonds of eternal marriage to be like God.  I am assuming then that God exists in the same type of bond, a male and female together type bond, the type of bond that is not just male or not just female, there is no deficiency of gender.

 

Identity and conectiveness can be two different things.  I think the limit of our understanding is based in the limit of our charity.  To have true love of Christ one would have to know the person intimately.  To know someone at that level is the same as knowing them as self, almost as if they were self (Charity and the second most important commandment).  That is not to say that one could not draw the line between self and others or that the person physically becomes one with the other but that there is no separation of mine vs theirs.  Like I asked in the other thread, is there anything you can think of that you can hide from God, any experience, any thought, any proprietary anything?  Even as a woman, could I hide what it is like to bear children from God?  Could I hide a female trait from God?  If you say no, then you believe it is possible to experience both genders as if self.  If you say yes it can be hidden, then you would have to believe that God is not all knowing, that there is a limitation or a deficiency based in gender, for example. I am saying I don't believe there is a deficiency based in gender, both genders are represented in God as God has to be in an eternal marriage.

 

Are you saying gender is a deficiency unless someone is married to someone of the opposite gender?  If so - there are element of that concept I find incredibly brilliant - especially on a combination of a spiritual and physical level (since we cannot be married as spirits - thus the need for temple work).  This bring so much that I have never before considered and intend to study in great detail.

 

 

PS - I do think there are things that can be "hidden" from G-d.  Not so much that he cannot go somewhere to observe something as that he will not.

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying gender is a deficiency unless someone is married to someone of the opposite gender?  If so - there are element of that concept I find incredibly brilliant - especially on a combination of a spiritual and physical level (since we cannot be married as spirits - thus the need for temple work).  This bring so much that I have never before considered and intend to study in great detail.

 

 

PS - I do think there are things that can be "hidden" from G-d.  Not so much that he cannot go somewhere to observe something as that he will not.

 

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. - 1 Cor 11:11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You inference of the seeing all things/knowing all things, etc., to my thinking, translates into a weird sounding hive-mind collective in the way you express it. It's not bad. It's just the way I read what you express. Calling it borg is only to be silly, not critical. If I have a criticism of your views, it's only that you presume things as factual that we don't know to be factual. You have a point of view...fine...and you express it as the obvious clear absolute proper view...not fine.

 

I don't deny that your view is a possibility. I don't call it bad or evil (in spite of the borg joke...which was really more to use the emoticon than anything). I do not agree with it, however, partly because it is doing just as you say (though you cannot seem to see it) by applying mortal perception to immortality.

 

Generally I tend towards the "we don't know" point of view on what the Celestial existence will be like, because the fact is just that. All the rest is speculative. I do find it slightly problematic to express speculative ideas as if theyr'e factual -- something I find you and traveler both guilty of in many of your debates. (And, just to be clear and fair, I'm sure I'm guilty in times past as well).

 

I do seem to have a stronger perception of roles and individuality in the eternities than you (per my understanding of your view...which, as I said, I may well misunderstand). I do not think becoming "one" means what you think it does. I see your approach as odd. But that is not to say it is wrong. I am, as you are, only speculating. Because we really don't know. The existence of an exalted being is so far beyond our capability to grasp that any description of it falls flat to me.

 

To be clear, I think the female role in the eternities will be to bear and raise spirit children and that the male role will be to create universes for them. I do not think both these things are equally shared duties any more than I feel the roles we have in this life are equally shared duties. I do not believe that we will be "equal" any more than we are "equal" now...not because of capability, worth, or unequal joy, but because we (the genders) will find the fullness of our joy in different ways due to the eternal nature and character of our gender.

 

It makes no sense to me, whatsoever, (and I find it a "wacky" concept to push) that inheriting all the Father has is 100% literal. Just as if I inherit all my worldly father has, I may get his money, his house, his intelligence, his propensity to prostate problems, etc. But my sister does not become my daughter, and my mother does not become my wife. I become as my father is. I don't become my father.

 

However, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe "all" means "all". Literally. All. And we'll all be married to everybody, be everybody's father, mother, sister, and brother, all will be women and all well be men, all create all the worlds together, all raise all spirit children created by all other exalted beings, and when one of us is communicating with their children, all the other billions upon billion of other beings exalted throughout the eons are right there with us giving the same communication.

 

Maybe.

Ok, thanks for your explanation,  ... a little taken back by the whole reference to the fictional antagonist race that uses violence and force to become "perfect" - the borg, as your perception of my views.

 

I mean, if you have a problem with someone having the ability to know your every thought, passion, experience in such an intimate way than just say that.

 

There is no twisting of the truth or it being just my viewpoint that God can know all that we think, feel, experience etc.  Don't you believe that?  Or do you believe that there are things we can hide from God?

 

If you believe that as fact, as truth there is no real distance to the idea that anyone who receives the fullness of His glory would have similar ability.   We are certainly not talking about all the additional, stereotyped images that go along with a borg-like motif of a violent conquering force that does it with evil power mongering intentions.  It is the complete opposite.  Only those that want to be in such a system are included. 

 

There is a place designed for all those that want to remain separate and isolated from each other, it is described like the stars, as one star is separated from another.  We will get what we desire.  So, to contemplate what we desire, to be as one vs separation is not just a fun philosophical exercises.  It is to better understand why we want to be like God.  What are His traits that make the desire to be like Him so attractive.  If one finds the ability to experience anothers experience as if they were there offensive then I think that is a factor that drives away from wanting to be like God.  The most important act of Christ was to experience the agony of our sins.  How could that ability, then, illicit a "we don't know" attitude? 

 

Yes, we do know and testify that Christ felt the agony of our sins, every one of us.  This is not an unknown trait of God.

 

I think these are very important points of the gospel that are fairly well established and important for the experession of our desire to be like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying gender is a deficiency unless someone is married to someone of the opposite gender?  If so - there are element of that concept I find incredibly brilliant - especially on a combination of a spiritual and physical level (since we cannot be married as spirits - thus the need for temple work).  This bring so much that I have never before considered and intend to study in great detail.

 

 

PS - I do think there are things that can be "hidden" from G-d.  Not so much that he cannot go somewhere to observe something as that he will not.

Yes, thanks, one of the requirements for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom is to be represented by two genders, to be married.  If that is a requirement then, yes a lack of one of the genders, a deficiency of gender causes a limitation of growth for the individual.

 

I think one of the biggest hang-ups of many religions is a concept that somehow God could be a God as an individual.  God may refer to the collective (I hate using that term because it has so many negative connotations) as an individual because maybe, at that level (this is hard to comprehend) that is what is meant by loving neighbor as self, as if the whole is one being.  There is no need to separate Heavenly Mother from a Heavenly Father because it is one in their eyes. To call it as such is to say something less than the one "God". We believe that an individual could never become like God while remaining as an individual.

 

To me it is like saying that Michael Jordon was a good basketball team.  Or that Lionel Messi is a good soccer team.  No he is not, he would probably make a horrible goal keeper.  A team could be a good team but an individual cannot be a good team.  Likewise, an individual cannot make a God but a group of them can. It requires a social organization to make God.  Some may see that as blasphemous but that is how I understand our gospel.

 

 

-----

 

So, please, go ahead and explain why you think or what you think could be hidden from God (now that you have made such a bold statement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, thanks, one of the requirements for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom is to be represented by two genders, to be married. If that is a requirement then, yes a lack of one of the genders, a deficiency of gender causes a limitation of growth for the individual.

I think one of the biggest hang-ups of many religions is a concept that somehow God could be a God as an individual. God may refer to the collective (I hate using that term because it has so many negative connotations) as an individual because maybe, at that level (this is hard to comprehend) that is what is meant by loving neighbor as self, as if the whole is one being. There is no need to separate Heavenly Mother from a Heavenly Father because it is one in their eyes. To call it as such is to say something less than the one "God". We believe that an individual could never become like God while remaining as an individual.

To me it is like saying that Michael Jordon was a good basketball team. Or that Lionel Messi is a good soccer team. No he is not, he would probably make a horrible goal keeper. A team could be a good team but an individual cannot be a good team. Likewise, an individual cannot make a God but a group of them can. It requires a social organization to make God. Some may see that as blasphemous but that is how I understand our gospel.

[[[silhouette speaking:

Interpreting our Gospel in this way seems very strange to me. Doesn't seem blasphemous, just....very different. So if I understand you correctly, your thoughts are that we can only become like God and inherit all that He has if we join as a collective of exalted beings, and only then will we be able to do everything that our God now does... Like creating worlds and populating them with people and everything? That we will all have to work in harmony in order to accomplish a task like making worlds, etc.? Or have I completely misunderstood and mangled the idea you're trying to convey?

I'm sorry if I have done that. I was up at 5 this morning after a totally sleepless night, so I might not be firing on all thrusters yet.

End of Silhouette's part]]]

-----

So, please, go ahead and explain why you think or what you think could be hidden from God (now that you have made such a bold statement).

Edited by Silhouette
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, thanks, one of the requirements for the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom is to be represented by two genders, to be married. If that is a requirement then, yes a lack of one of the genders, a deficiency of gender causes a limitation of growth for the individual.

I think one of the biggest hang-ups of many religions is a concept that somehow God could be a God as an individual. God may refer to the collective (I hate using that term because it has so many negative connotations) as an individual because maybe, at that level (this is hard to comprehend) that is what is meant by loving neighbor as self, as if the whole is one being. There is no need to separate Heavenly Mother from a Heavenly Father because it is one in their eyes. To call it as such is to say something less than the one "God". We believe that an individual could never become like God while remaining as an individual.

To me it is like saying that Michael Jordon was a good basketball team. Or that Lionel Messi is a good soccer team. No he is not, he would probably make a horrible goal keeper. A team could be a good team but an individual cannot be a good team. Likewise, an individual cannot make a God but a group of them can. It requires a social organization to make God. Some may see that as blasphemous but that is how I understand our gospel.

[[[silhouette speaking:

Interpreting our Gospel in this way seems very strange to me. Doesn't seem blasphemous, just....very different. So if I understand you correctly, your thoughts are that we can only become like God and inherit all that He has if we join as a collective of exalted beings, and only then will we be able to do everything that our God now does... Like creating worlds and populating them with people and everything? That we will all have to work in harmony in order to accomplish a task like making worlds, etc.? Or have I completely misunderstood and mangled the idea you're trying to convey?

I'm sorry if I have done that. I was up at 5 this morning after a totally sleepless night, so I might not be firing on all thrusters yet.

End of Silhouette's part]]]

-----

So, please, go ahead and explain why you think or what you think could be hidden from God (now that you have made such a bold statement).

 

If all one does is focus on "doing what God does" one might miss the underlying reason for why God does what He does.  I think the issue is to better understand the reasons behind why God's glory is related to bringing to pass the immortality and Eternal life of man.  If God's glory was just dependent on what He does then He could be alone, by Himself and do many great things but obviously what we learn from things like the gospel of charity and the greatest commandments being love God and love thy neighbor as self is that joy is bigger than self.  How is that?  Why is that?

 

If joy is limited to one's own achievements alone, it is limiting.  If joy can be expanded to include receiving joy from someone else' achievement it become limitless.  Isn't that what we learn from Christ' atonement - an act from someone else that we can enjoy the benefits of.  And isn't that what we learn from the statement that God's work and glory comes from the achievements of His children? 

 

It is not so much what God does but where He finds His happiness and source of endless joy.  The whole thing only works when one loves another so much that they can feel what they feel.  How can one mourn with those that mourn unless one knows that someone is mourning?  How can you know that?  Sometimes it is not by just what is observed.  It is by knowing someone so intimately that one can tell what they are feeling on the inside.  What is the purpose of visiting teaching and home teaching - it is a chance to know those that we teach on an intimate level more than what would happen just with the short time in church meetings so that we can "feel" what they feel at some small level.  So we start to learn this vital trait and skill that is found in the Celestial Kingdom.  This is what is meant by Charity.

 

Can one have charity without understanding what another feels, experiencing what they experience, at least on some level?  That is at the core of charity and is what is in abundance in the Celestial Kingdom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What SemSnoozer is saying is correct. But it is, I believe, disregarding the importance of individuality -- something that I believe matters...though why or how, I don't know.

 

But (imo) God is God without others, in spite of the fact that, accurately, God could not become God without others.

 

Of course, that's irrelevant, because God will never actually be God without others (specifically a spouse), and so putting it in terms like SemSnooz does is logical.

 

But, yeah...it sounds weird. I guess I'd be more inclined to get on board if any prophet or apostle had ever explicitly taught the same interpretation in the same way. It's a fine interpretation of things. But it is, ultimately, only an interpretation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AskAndAnswer and Animal, Do you feel that your questions have been addressed? or is there more understanding on the subject you would like?

Yes Mordorbund, when I came across that quote from the King Follet discourse that said that matter is eternal, then that answered my original question about how the three initial statements could be reconciled - it seems that no reconciliation is needed because they are all true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share