I personally don't know God's gender, or if God has a gender.
Referring to God as "he" (or "He") in some contexts has implications that I think encourage a certain short-hand sloppiness in our thinking about this being who is well beyond our understanding in most contexts.
So, a related request.
Could we agree to refer to God as "God" (or "G_d" if one prefers) and not as a male entity?
<opens the floor for the anticipated storm of "God the Father" comments>
[ December 07, 2005, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And can we also start referring to 'Mother Earth' as just 'Earth'?
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
And can we refer to Bob_Scopatz as "BS" too?
Oh wait, maybe not that one.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Unmaker (Member # 1641) on :
Well, Judaism, Christianity and Islam refer to their god as a "he." Other religions have multiple gods, each with its own gender. Non-religious theism is too vague for me, so I guess they can go with a neuter god, but they seem a pretty small minority, really.
Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I don't think it's very fair to request people to stop referring to God as a specific gender if their religion makes it a point of doctrine that "he" actually has one. Don't Mormons, for example, specifically believe that God is, in fact, male?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think I can agree to that.
Posted by SC Carver (Member # 8173) on :
You can refer to God how ever you want, and I promise I will not be offended. I will however be offended if you get offended when I refer to God as Him.
I agree with you for the most part. I have no idea if God has gender, but I have always heard "Him" refered to as a "He" and would have a hard time changing now. I promise it is in no way meant to be demining to the Female population.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Enigmatic
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm not sure about the seriousness of this request (its Bob, so of course I should err on the side of not serious at all), but I wouldn't think this request would be a reasonable one. I would say the same thing if someone requested that we always use the capitalized "He" or "Him" when referring to God. Or that we always use "G_d".
Its fine if you want to express yourself a certain way, but I don't think its reasonable to ask others to conform to your desired form of expression.
Edit: Especially when the form of expression you don't want used is the most common one.
Posted by Rico (Member # 7533) on :
Yes it does seem somewhat of an odd request, not that I disagree with the thought behind it, I don't think anyone knows God's gender (if any) and I certainly think that the societal background for when these religions were formed could have affected the decision to give "him" a gender.
But I lean more towards letting people believe and talk about God however they wish. Heck, I'm agnostic so all this talk is just theoretical in it's entirety coming from me, I just sort of find the subject interesting Posted by Melissa Dedinová (Member # 7890) on :
I believe that gender is a concept that does not apply to God. The Bible uses both masculine and feminine imagery for God (metaphors of a mother hen and father or warrior are equally that - metaphors). I nearly got a reputation for being a goddess-worshipping lesbian once, for stating these two things. That said, however, I also feel strongly that "he" is still acceptable as a gender-neutral pronoun, and that "man" can sometimes mean "mankind" without insulting my existence as a woman. "It" isn't quite appropriate for God, and it can be awkward and, in my opinion, artificial, to avoid a pronoun entirely when using the word God more than once in a sentence. Therefore, aware of the inadequacy of the phrase - as all phrases are, referring to deity - I refer to God as a him. I can understand where you're coming from though, Bob - many people, like the ones insulting my goddess-worshipping-lesbianity, don't seem to be capable of - or willing to? - really appreciate the difference.
note: I don't want to say that being a goddess-worshipping lesbian is somehow an embarrassing thing to be, if that's what you are, but it was a fairly inaccurate of my beliefs and habits, and I did feel that it rather missed the point that I was trying to make, that ALL anthropomorphic descriptions of God are metaphoric.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Well, Judaism, Christianity and Islam refer to their god as a "he."
Not all of Christianity does this.
I'm rather surprised by the comment above apologizing to the females in the group...as if this were some "equal time" issue rather than an issue of creating false understandings of God's nature.
Xav, the reasonableness of me making the request is irrelevant. I simply asked. If every request had to pass a test for it's acceptability to the masses first, we would never get anywhere.
If one person, every once in awhile stops to think and uses a neutral term instead of the automatic one, then I'm perfectly happy.
Heck, I'm perfectly happy if I myself remember to use a neutral term most of the time.
Finally, as to whether it is too late to learn a new way...I'm probably older than most of the people here. Last week I learned a new way to tie my shoes. It involves 1 fewer steps than the method I used previously and, while it is not yet automatic (like the old method was), I know that it is better because it ultimately will take less time, and yields a more reliable knot.
I have recently begun to notice that a lifelong habit of assuming God has male gender actually gets in the way of understanding some things that I learn about God. It's not a big change, but in some ways I feel a change in this referent actually increases awareness (or at least consciousness) beyond the patently silly God is male or God is female issue.
And Enigmatic...yes, you may. Posted by Zotto! (Member # 4689) on :
I think it's fine if your personal concept of God does not give "him" a gender, but I don't think it makes much sense to ask people whose doctrines differ to abide by your idiosyncratic belief.
Seems about the same as asking someone who doesn't believe God has a gender to start referring to God as a Him, because you're so sure that "he" does have a gender. *grin*
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
What'd you go to Bob, the bunny ears?
Cause I gotta say, I don't think that's a better knot than the alternative.
I only know two ways to tie my shoes. If there's a third my head may asplode.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I have recently begun to notice that a lifelong habit of assuming God has male gender actually gets in the way of understanding some things that I learn about God. It's not a big change, but in some ways I feel a change in this referent actually increases awareness (or at least consciousness) beyond the patently silly God is male or God is female issue.
To some of us His gender is not an assumption, but explicitly spelled out in the doctrine we believe in. To those of the LDS faith, His gender is an essential part of His nature and our relationship to Him. To ask us to deny His gender in order to try to be politically correct (errr theologically correct???) is actually slightly offensive.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hmm...asking people to refer to God as "God" is an idiosyncratic belief of mine?
Shucks, I thought I was in good company.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
El JT: I will not link you to the website of shoelace tying methods.
Bao...I thought I'd already dealt with the insulting suggestion that my request had anything to do with political correctness. Why do you persist?
I didn't know that God's gender was an essential aspect of LDS doctrine. To be honest, it never even occurred to me that calling God "God" would offend anyone. I simply made note of the fact that I don't know God's gender. If you feel you do, then I can certainly see why you'd be uncomfortable using a neutral term when you truly mean a male deity.
I'm going to end my involvement in this thread now. If this was offensive to people, that certainly wasn't my intent. This doctrinal stuff is a flippin' minefield.
I beg your pardon.
Have a nice day.
<edges back out of thread>
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Bob, Please don't link it. Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Sorry, Bob, I was trying to edit but you beat me to it. Offensive was to strong of a word. I was trying to change it to better describe how I felt. If there's a nice word for slightly insensitive due to a lack of complete understanding, I would use it, but English is not my strong point. Anyway, my impression was not that you'd ask us to call God God, but not to call God Him. Anyways, sorry about that...no hard feelings?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I didn't know that God's gender was an essential aspect of LDS doctrine. To be honest, it never even occurred to me that calling God "God" would offend anyone.
It does not offend me at all to call God "God". That is how I usually refer to him.
But yeah, I don't agree with the assumption that nobody knows if God has a gender.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
mph,
I assume God knows if God has a gender. God has not chosen to share that knowledge with me. I know that I was raised in a tradition that encouraged the assumption that God is male, but truthfully, I don't have a clue about God's gender.
I suspect that if this dicussion goes much further it will turn into the kind of thread we probably don't need right now.
Frankly, if I'd known that this was a part of LDS doctrine, I would not have made the post in the first place. It's not my desire to question other's doctrinal beliefs. It is not a productive use of our time here at Hatrack, or on Earth as far as I can tell.
So again, please excuse this unintended gaffe. I should've known, but I really didn't.
And I'm not at all interested in exploring this issue any further.
Contrary to my strongly held belief that threads should only be deleted in the most dire of circumstances, if this thread starts to become a source of more bitterness here today, I swear that I'll delete it.
I do not wish to be the catalyst for more nastiness here today. I'd rather take the hit for having deleted a thread that other people thought worth posting in than be associated with another round of hurt feelings.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Bao -- no big deal.
I beg your forgiveness as well.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, and Val, it turns out you were right -- the request was unreasonable, but for a different reason.
So I beg your forgiveness as well.
And with that, I really will hope that this thread dies a quick and silent death.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
El JT -- just so you know, there are DOZENS of ways to tie shoelaces at that site that I'm not going to link you to.
There, now I can apologize to you too, for the anxiety I have now caused.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Nothing to forgive Bob--I think the charged 'air' on the board today has just made myself (and maybe others) a little hypersensitive.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That's cool. I wasn't upset by the request, as long as you weren't going to get upset if I didn't go along with your request. Which I never thought you would.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
:::bump:::
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
WHY, OH WHY does the Hatrack user agreement bar the use of curse words?
Kwea!
Oh wait! Now I've done it too!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
LOL
(It was at the top, so adding the second reply didn't affect it's position...I won't add any more comments out of respect for you, Bob.... )
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
God is an iron, thanks.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Unmaker: Well, Judaism, Christianity and Islam refer to their god as a "he."
Yes and no. Hebrew just doesn't have a neutral pronoun. Everything in Hebrew, without exception, is gendered. And masculine is used as the default. But we don't consider God to be male. It's just verbal shorthand, because "it" seems disrespectful.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
I think I'm going to stick with the prayer that Christ taught that begins (from the English translation): "Our Father, who art in Heaven."
I don't believe that Christ ever referred to God as His gender non-specific parental entity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
starLisa, does Hebrew have a word for "parent" in addition to words for "mother" and "father"?
Thanks in advance. Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I did find it ironic that the request was made on a Forum hosted by a person who's religious beliefs specifically designate a gender for God. To be honest, however, I think that Mormonism is one of a handful of religions where gender does make a theological difference in defining God and our relationship to deity. Other religions placing priority on gendering Deity are usually feminist. What I was most bemused about was that Bob_S is usually familiar with what he is talking about at Hatrack, considering the company.
For full disclosure, God in Mormonism IS considered married and I often times wonder if the generic "God" incorporates His married condition. Then again, maybe not. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Never say Die: I want to congratulate Bob on his terminology awareness. IE many impossible to argue with points go along the lines of "I beleive" or "it is a point of faith" or even, "it is writ," or some variation.
Bob starts with, "I assume" or "I suspect." I really do trust the views of somebody that doesn't imply dismissal of all argument with the "I believe" qualification, its just more approachable.
I wanted to raise a similar question about gender: I spent 2 months recently in Catalonia, studying Spanish (though its not the only official language there of course clipboard people). I was interested by the use in Spanish of gender identity in alot of different contexts. In spanish there is actually a greater deal of ambiguity about gender. A certain gender Identity can be applied to an object based on the context: ie, El Mar, (the ocean, mansculine) is sometimes called La Mar (the ocean, feminine). The usage depends on the historical setting and the point of view of the speaker.
Why can't we be a little more flexible in gender in English. Another example is spanish verb conjugations like nosotros/as (we) vosotros/as (you all) and ellos/as (men, or men and women). When there is a mixed sampling of men and women, the conjugation is usually masculine: Nosotros Hablamos Espanol (we speak spanish) and there is less need for he or she, ladies and gentlemen or girls and boys references. Is this a form of bias against the feminine? I don't know spanish culture well enough to be sure, but my inclination is to say no.
Posted by tern (Member # 7429) on :
quote:Could we agree to refer to God as "God" (or "G_d" if one prefers) and not as a male entity?
Nope. But I won't get bent out of shape if others don't correctly refer to Him as male. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This thread makes me think of Towing Jehovah.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Googled for the shoelace tying site. Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
Isn't this the "Last Post Thread?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Bob: that was the one I found with Google. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: starLisa, does Hebrew have a word for "parent" in addition to words for "mother" and "father"?
Thanks in advance.
Nope. Everything has a gender. A table is masculine. A bed is feminine. An oven is masculine. A teaspoon is feminine. Water is both masculine and plural.
There is a word for "parent", but it comes in both flavors. Horeh is a male parent, and horah is a female parent. They aren't used very often, though horim, which means "parents" is used frequently.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: This thread makes me think of Towing Jehovah.
There's a book called The Jehovah Contract about a hitman who is hired to kill God.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
quote:\For full disclosure, God in Mormonism IS considered married and I often times wonder if the generic "God" incorporates His married condition. Then again, maybe not.
I don't know, but I DO know that "God" is a title and not a personal name. All of the persons currently participating in "God" as we LDS worship him (Heavenly Father aka Elohim, Jesus the Christ aka Jehovah, the Holy Ghost) are male (though some have speculated otherwise in regard to the Holy Ghost, and maybe they're right, maybe not). We assume that these personages either are or will be married, but we are not supposed to worship their spouses as separate from themselves at this time. (This may change someday, since LDS doctrine changes and grows as more thorough understanding is revealed.)
So, "God" in LDS theology could include persons of both genders, as long as we are using "God" as a title and not as a synonym for "Heavenly Father" (the latter being the paramount of the three individuals currently united in "purpose, power, and intent" to act as "God").
Was that sufficiently confusing?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Yozhik, I'm Mormon and I only vaguely got it.
(Thanks for the link, Bob. Solved a long-standing problem with my 3-year-old's shoes. )
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Am I correct in understanding that it is important to LDS theology that God, in the most important doctrinal sense, be considered male? If so, does that importance (or some of it) transfer to the male-to-female relationship of humans?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. Gender is a hugely important thing to Mormons.
Posted by David Bowles (Member # 1021) on :
God's gotta have babies, you see.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Magan, the whole reason its important to know that God is male is the relationship of male-to-female relations of humans. If I am undersanding what you are implying. DB, correct. It takes two to, well, create spirit children. Don't know why. It just does.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Can anyone explain that more please?
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Am I correct in understanding that it is important to LDS theology that God, in the most important doctrinal sense, be considered male? If so, does that importance (or some of it) transfer to the male-to-female relationship of humans?
Megan, I'm not sure it's important in the way you might think it's important. Because we also believe in Heavenly Parents - a Mother as well as a Father. (Although it's not taught extensively, the belief is there.) So we don't think that God only loves or understands or more highly values the men. And while technically the husband/father is the head of the household, we are also taught that "in [their] sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners." In reality we are taught to be so respectful and helpful and considerate of each other that it is truly a partnership leading the home.
The reason it's important is because we believe that "gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." So we believe that God's gender is important because we believe gender is an important part of all of us.
Posted by sweetbaboo (Member # 8845) on :
Good explanation Jenna.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Yep. I was trying to think of how to explain it, but I couldn't come up with anything near that good.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Thanks, Jenna. That makes sense. I don't think it's a theology that I could ever accept, but it's much less inscrutable for me now in terms of gender relations than it was before .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Although it's not taught extensively, the belief is there.
Am I correct in believing that, as I understand it, most roles assumed by Mormons to be played by a Heavenly Mother are at this point speculation and not doctrine?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yes Tom, I think that would be correct. The fact that there is a Heavenly Mother is a point of doctrine, but as to the roles she may or may not play (according to my understanding) are just speculation.
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
The Quotes Jenna gave, from the document "The Family: A Proclamation to the World", are pretty much the only official references we have concerning this.
The fact that there is a heavenly Mother is doctrine. Anything else concerning this, at this point, apart from what Jenna has stated, is speculation.
EDIT: What BaoQingTian said.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Am I correct in believing that, as I understand it, most roles assumed by Mormons to be played by a Heavenly Mother are at this point speculation and not doctrine?
That's a hard question to answer. We are taught specifically that we are (spiritually) the children of God, as opposed to His creations. Children require two parents. And there are Church manuals that do discuss our "Heavenly Parents", which obviously includes a Mother as well as a Father. So the fact that she exists is doctrine, but not much is taught specifically about the Heavenly Mother, so anything specific about her role - other than being our Mother - is probably speculation. The only things we KNOW about God are what we're told in scripture and revelation, and those things are generally limited to the Father (or the Son, or the Holy Ghost).
Edit: whoops, didn't see those two posts before mine. Ditto.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Enigmatic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)