As far as I’m aware, there is no record of Joseph Smith ever saying this… anyone else know?

Read 22

This seems to be the earliest account of what Joseph Smith possibly said: “Br. Woodruff spoke. . . . He refered to a saying of Joseph Smith which he heard him utter (like this) That if the People knew what was behind the vail, they would try by every means to commit suicide that they might get there, but the Lord in his wisdom had implanted the fear of death in every person that they might cling to life and thus accomplish the designs of their creator. (Diary of Charles Lowell Walker, ed. by A. Karl Larson and Katherine M. Larson [Logan, Ut.: Utah State University Press, 1980], vol. 1, pp. 465-66.)”

If Smith said this, he seems to have said “veil” not “telestial kingdom”. As for the telestial kingdom quote, Eldred Smith said: “I cannot for a minute conceive the telestial being hell, either, because it is considered a heaven, a glory. The Prophet Joseph Smith told us that if we could get one little glimpse into the telestial glory even, the glory is so great that we would be tempted to commit suicide to get there.” (March 10, 1964, BYU Speeches of the Year, 1964, p. 4)

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=30428&hl=post-mortal+gender

Contrary to a couple of replies above, I think it’s fine to wonder and discuss something like this, when you consider what eternity might or might not be like for you depending on your kingdom assignment. Personally, I’m hanging my hat on Alma’s statement that the resurrection will be a complete restoration, with gender in all of its features and implications wholly intact (Alma 40:23, noted above). And, despite the justice of God, being the loving Father that He is, I think He would not want to deny the pleasures of intimacy to those who were “the honorable men of the earth.” However, I can see him making the rapists wait a few millennia.

If we want to know what we will have, we first have to know what we will be doing. For those of us who have spent years unmarried, that is not an idle question!

http://www.yourdictionary.com/gender

GENDER

That which designates the sexes.

2. As a general rule, when the masculine is used it includes the
feminine, as, man (q. v.) sometimes includes women. This is the general
rule, unless a contrary intention appears. But in penal statutes, which
must be construed strictly, when the masculine is used and not the
feminine, the latter is not in general included. 3 C. & P. 225. An instance
to the contrary, however, may be found in the construction, 25 Ed. III, st.
5, c. 2, 1, which declares it to be high treason, “When a man doth compass
or imagine the death of our lord the king,” &c. These words, “our lord the
king,” have been construed to include a queen regnant. 2 Inst. 7, 8, 9, H.
P. C. 12, 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 17, Bac. Ab. Treason, D.

3. Pothier says that the masculine often includes the feminine, but the
feminine never includes the masculine, that according to this rule if a man
were to bequeath to another all his horses, his mares would pass by the
legacy, but if he were to give all his mares, the horses would not be
included. Poth. Introd. au titre 16, des Testaments et Donations
Testamentaires, n. 170, 3 Brev. R. 9. In the Louisiana code in the French
language, it is provided that the word fils, sons, comprehends filles,
daughters. Art. 3522, n. 1. Vide Ayl. Pand. 57, 4 Car. & Payne, 216, S. C.
19 Engl. Com. Law R. 351, Barr. on the Stat. 216, note, Feme, Feme covert,
Feminine, Male, Man, Sex, Women, Worthiest of blood.

Source: Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

In actual use, cf

gender bias
n. unequal treatment in employment opportunity (such as promotion, pay, benefits and privileges), and expectations due to attitudes based on the sex of an employee or group of employees. Gender bias can be a legitimate basis for a lawsuit under anti-discrimination statutes.

The problem with gender, as with many words, is that there are some who have decided that they either need a word with a different meaning and are using the word for that (and thereby feel that they should be entitled to exclude others from the legal or historical meanings of the word) or there are those who are trying to remake meaning, including the word.

I would note that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act clearly does not protect transsexuals, and thereby could be thought of using gender the way the Proclamation on the Family uses it and not the way Nick is using it. On the other hand, any reason one might discriminate against transsexuals can be treated as discrimination for failure to follow sexual roles and thereby becomes actionable, which would support Nick’s use of the word. (Yes, the public law class I just taught is bleeding over into my posting).

I’m back to sleep. I was home asleep, having called in sick when I got a mandatory call, turns out the company has decided that anyone who is sick is to get a call telling them to stay home and recover. This posting was just enough to put me back to sleep.

Are you referring to this one? If so, it says nothing regarding the loss of “physical attributes” in the TKs. (I don’t think “cannot be enlarged” means what you think it means).

D&C 132: 16-20, 37
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Hawkgrrrrl, I’ll read that again tonight; I remember it differently, that others pushed their agenda aga8inst BRM by going to Mckay but then my memory may be failing.

Homie “….sexe is done through sitting down one in front of another and think about it” well, as a man thinketh…

Got to go, kids are wondering what is taking me so long…and I can’t tell them!

Instant classic line – and instant classic name.

I have rushed through most comments as I am on my way for the school run. This might stick in my mind and I hope I will not inadvertently drop words such as ‘sexe’ or ‘genitals’ in my reports today.
Not even mentionning the scriptures which are quite specific as to the loss of physical attributes in inferior worlds (‘neither men nor women’, ‘will be angels unto the gods’…in D&C), I wish, in a passionate moment, to mention sexuality.
Sexuality is not a competition. Indeed, it is a mean, but, hey, come on!: it is a great blessing. In these special moments with a partner that you love (and who loves you), the feelings go beyong the pleasure of the senses and reach into higher spiritual realms.
Sexuality is the most powerful desire of human beings (unless, like Paul the Apostle, you decide to remain chaste and then it is mostly out of your mind). It is programmed within the chemistry of our bodies. It is encoded into what we are: we are sexual beings. Since life is a test and a mean to gain a body of flesh as a receptacle for our spirits, sexual desires are a necessary part of our learning to master the flesh (same goes with our stomachs and minds). Do Gods use other means for perpetration of their posterity? All I know, from my smart cultural store, is that Sylvester Stallone, in Demolition Man, is deeply frustrated when Sandra Bullock explains him than in their technology advanced world (he had been in a cryogenic jail for many years) sexe is done through sitting down one in front of another and think about it!
Because of these powerful desires, and their sacred potential, these things have to be done within the limits our Father has set for us. Then, in the eternity, we may enjoy ourselves because we lives according to the plan of happiness. Not living within this plan will bring sorrow. I don’t imagine a process of punishment by castration by loving beings in the afterlife, I believe in the principle of a resurrection according to righteousness if we have been righteous, and less righteousness if we have been less so. Joseph Smith also said that (forgive my poor translation from the French) “It is at the time of resurrection that there will be much sorrow and gnashings of teeth”, when many will realise that they haven’t fulfilled the measure of their creation, have lived in a way that cannot fulfill their nature. Our choices in mortality will be reflected in our individual resurrection and will determine our sanctity here and there.
It is preferable to read and ponder D&C personnally, but it seems to me that the Lord and his prophets have been clear.
There is something special and unique in sexuality, and the fact that plural marriage will be an attribute of the Gods is another point on which eternal exaltation will be based: the blessing to enjoy intimacy in a greatly spiritually enhanced manner.
Got to go, kids are wondering what is taking me so long…and I can’t tell them!

Love.

I think Mormonism properly elevates mankind, rather thand diminishing deity. That’s one of the most elegant, beautiful aspects of the religion taught by Joseph Smith.

Amen, Nick.

It doesn’t matter how the “Proclamation” defines gender. If the “Proclamation” said that cows had five legs, would you accept that in spite of the fact that the rest of the English-speaking world knows that a cow has four legs? “Gender” is a social construct, and it varies wildly between cultures and time periods. The “Proclamation” is clearly referring to biological sex being eternal. Just because some ecclesiastical officer misuses a term, doesn’t change the definition of the term.

#32:
I just don’t think what will exist in the hereafter will involve the processes of impregnation and gestation as we know it here – that we won’t be engaging in sexual intercourse in order to create spirit children.

Thanks, Ray. That’s different from how I read your original statement.

#35:
Mormon theology tends to make God finite and human. Even though we give lip service to the all powerful, omnipresent, omnipotent stuff, we like to bring him/her down to our finite brains ability to understand.

To the contrary, I think Mormonism properly elevates mankind, rather thand diminishing deity. That’s one of the most elegant, beautiful aspects of the religion taught by Joseph Smith.

#41:
One’s gender is not determined by sex organs…Gender is also an essential characteristic of the spirit prior to birth.

ARGH….So right, and then so wrong. You’re correct that gender is not determined by sex organs. Aside from the chromosomal defects you mentioned, sex organs determine one’s biological sex. If a spirit has sex organs (and Mormonism would seem to indicate that such is the case), then a sex is eternal. “Gender,” on the other hand, has nothing at all to do with sex organs. Gender is a social construct of what a particular society, at a particular time, considers “masculine” or “feminine.” By definition, “gender” cannot be eternal, no matter how badly an ecclesiastical officer misuses the term.

#42:
Kimball’s claims are also taken out of context a lot, especially the one on rape and whether someone permits or agrees to it…

You can’t “permit or agree to” being raped. Rape is defined by the absence of permission or agreement.

Now that’s just bitchy!! ….the nails are out and ready…….

#23 Hawkgrrrl:

Its interesting what happened with those books. Many have taken a lot out of context like JFS mainly rejecting the evolution of intelligence (but he did note that more species have disappeared to argue against it and more). Kimball’s claims are also taken out of context a lot, especially the one on rape and whether someone permits or agrees to it, I think he was saying something else overall but he did add that mistakes in the book are his and not the church’s. And what happened with BRM and McKay is worth exploring more especially since, I think, from memory Moyle and Peterson were the committee members? can recall now exactly but it wasn’t McKay himself who pointed out the errors, or no?
Could all make a good post or several.

Gender is also an essential characteristic of the spirit prior to birth.

JFS’s speculation about whether the naughty-bits are included in the resurrection of non-exalted beings is one of those “interesting” subjects. But the over-arching doctrine is that, and it seems very clear or easy to deduce from other generally accepted doctrine, _if_ there are to be physical sexual relations among resurrected beings, then _only_ exalted beings get to “do it,” because only exalted beings will be married after the resurrection. They are the only ones _not_ living “singly and separately”.

I don’t know if JFS meant to imply that the bottom two rungs of the CK are “smoothies” too, but we can deduce from the doctrine of them being “single and separate” that the bottom two rungs won’t be having sexual relations.

JFS’s last sentence that you quoted may seem to _imply_ a “genderless” society in the Terrestrial and Telestial. But, that would only be true if one concedes the point that lack of naughty-bits means lack of gender.

“Also, the bit about the TK and suicide, Joseph Smith never said that.”

CES instructors are currently encouraged to disclaim that quote about the TK whenever it’s brought up. Our local CES director said the quote comes from the journal of one insignificant member who claims JS said it, and it never appeared in any journals, notes, minutes, or transcripts of the many others who officially or otherwise documented JS’s sermons/talks. If you get the search words just right, and scroll through many pages, you can find the one and only source somewhere on the web. I don’t have it bookmarked.