inquiringmind Posted August 23, 2011 Author Posted August 23, 2011 The idea that sons of perdition, or anyone, could have their spiritual bodies "disorganized" is a false precept which makes about as much sense as the idea that our Father somehow exists without any substance or parts or passions.Really?So what about the idea that they existed as "intelligences" before they had spirit bodies?Is that "a false precept which makes about as much sense as the idea that our Father somehow exists without any substance or parts or passions""?
inquiringmind Posted August 23, 2011 Author Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) The idea that sons of perdition, or anyone, could have their spiritual bodies "disorganized" is a false precept which makes about as much sense as the idea that our Father somehow exists without any substance or parts or passions.Really?What about the idea that they existed as "intelligences" before they had spirit bodies?Is that "a false precept which makes about as much sense as the idea that our Father somehow exists without any substance or parts or passions"? Edited August 23, 2011 by inquiringmind
Calm Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) What would "they" be if they didn't have some form of substance Justr a thought in somebody else's head, with no form of body of their own?I mean, come on now, really. Who in their right mind would believe something like that, much less think it's compatible with anything which is true.Probably someone who has observed the decomposition of bodies after physical death and interpolated spiritual death (ie. separation from God) to be something along the same lines since we are taught that spirit is a sort of refined matter.The idea, IIRC, is that all order and life and light (ie. energy) come from God. If one completely cuts oneself off from God, one logically cuts oneself off from the source of order and life and energy, this leaving one with essentially only disorder, iow without an outside force of order inhibiting it, entropy becomes the 'natural' state of an object/being.I am not saying this is correct, just that this position is a logical result of scriptural doctrine depending on how one chooses to interpret certain ambiguous statements.As a possible approach, one could assume that the bonding of the spirit body to the physical body (which only applies to those who have lived mortal lives and thus been resurrected, not to Satan and those who followed him after his rebellion---as far as I know those who did not go through mortality have no 'promise' that there will be no separation of their elements on any level) only is relevant in the sense of the spiritual elements being fused with the physical elements that the resurrected form is made of and not the entire form, much like our physical body is composed of eternal physical elements that will never cease to exist in a sense, but the human body itself can still be decomposed into its individual components and is the natural end product when death occurs. Edited August 23, 2011 by calmoriah
zerinus Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 Really?What about the idea that they existed as "intelligences" before they had spirit bodies?Is that "a false precept which makes about as much sense as the idea that our Father somehow exists without any substance or parts or passions"?Actually it is.
HiJolly Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 The sons of perdition are not going to have their spiritual bodies disorganized, so, no, that is not "compatible" with the Book of Mormon if by "compatible" you mean in harmony with the truth that is in the Book of Mormon about the state of those who become sons of perdition.The idea that sons of perdition, or anyone, could have their spiritual bodies "disorganized" is a false precept which makes about as much sense as the idea that our Father somehow exists without any substance or parts or passions.What would "they" be if they didn't have some form of substance. Justr a thought in somebody else's head, with no form of body of their own?I mean, come on now, really. Who in their right mind would believe something like that, much less think it's compatible with anything which is true.If the sparks came from Adam Kadmon, they can return to Adam Kadmon. I don't think you're looking at the 'big picture', Ahab. And while some verses seem to contradict the idea, D&C 19 and the words of the prophets & apostles should be taken into account, I'm thinking. You & Z. are overstepping the bounds of reasonable conjecture, IMO. HiJolly
zerinus Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) Probably someone who has observed the decomposition of bodies after physical death and interpolated spiritual death (ie. separation from God) to be something along the same lines since we are taught that spirit is a sort of refined matter.The idea, IIRC, is that all order and life and light (ie. energy) come from God. If one completely cuts oneself off from God, one logically cuts oneself off from the source of order and life and energy, this leaving one with essentially only disorder, iow without an outside force of order inhibiting it, entropy becomes the 'natural' state of an object/being.I am not saying this is correct, just that this position is a logical result of scriptural doctrine depending on how one chooses to interpret certain ambiguous statements.Except that if those "interpretations" are incorrect, it is false doctrine, period. You can't have it half way in between. Edited August 23, 2011 by zerinus
HiJolly Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 Such as?You appear to be throwing around one-liners haphazardly without having a serious contribution to make to the discussion. I am not sure what to make of that.Calmoriah's comment was straight & direct to you. Too bad you can't see it's pointed value, esp. since it was made just for you. HiJolly
HiJolly Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand Russell
Calm Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 Really?So what about the idea that they existed as "intelligences" before they had spirit bodies?Is that "a false precept which makes about as much sense as the idea that our Father somehow exists without any substance or parts or passions""?That would depend on what is meant by "substance". If it is meant "nonmaterial", LDS thought is that intelligence and/or spirit is a more refined form of matter. You are right, imo, that depending on how "substance", "parts" or "passions" is defined that it may not be a conflict with LDS thought. However, if one uses the classical definitions, I would say that it doesn't work within the explicit or implied concepts of LDS thought on the nature of God and Man.There is also some debate on exactly what existing as intelligences meant, especially since Joseph Smith used the term "intelligence" and "spirit" interchangeably in some discussions/scripture.
zerinus Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 As a possible approach, one could assume that the bonding of the spirit body to the physical body (which only applies to those who have lived mortal lives and thus been resurrected, not to Satan and those who followed him after his rebellion---as far as I know those who did not go through mortality have no 'promise' that there will be no separation of their elements on any level) only is relevant in the sense of the spiritual elements being fused with the physical elements that the resurrected form is made of and not the entire form, much like our physical body is composed of eternal physical elements that will never cease to exist in a sense, but the human body itself can still be decomposed into its individual components and is the natural end product when death occurs.You are welcome to philosophize about the gospel as much as you like, if that is what you like doing; but don't expect anyone to take it seriously as gospel doctrine.
Calm Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." -- Bertrand RussellGreat quote.Considering the prime examples in the scriptures of those rigidly focused on orthodoxy even including areas where direct revelation was not given are the Pharisees, I tend to be much more concerned with orthopraxy and more cautious about proclaiming what is 'absolute truth' in regards to open doctrinal matters not bearing on our personal salvation, especially where the scriptures themselves say something along the lines of no man knows save the Father.I don't see us having enough information to make pronouncements on how something must be interpreted lacking actual revelation on the matter considering the implications of what has happened before when new revelation has the potential of turning our understanding upside down (such as in the case of D&C 19 or Joseph's discussion on spirit elements as refined or purer matter rather than something immaterial.) Edited August 23, 2011 by calmoriah
inquiringmind Posted August 23, 2011 Author Posted August 23, 2011 You are welcome to philosophize about the gospel as much as you like, if that is what you like doing; but don't expect anyone to take it seriously as gospel doctrine.I posted the OP, and I thought I made it clear that the question wasn't whether this was doctrine. 1
Calm Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 You are welcome to philosophize about the gospel as much as you like, if that is what you like doing; but don't expect anyone to take it seriously as gospel doctrine.Exactly
zerinus Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 I posted the OP, and I thought I made it clear that the question wasn't whether this was doctrine.The ideas you presented in the OP are not compatible with the Book of Mormon, period. There is no arguments about that. That is the answer to your question.
jo1952 Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 Really?What about the idea that they existed as "intelligences" before they had spirit bodies?Is that "a false precept which makes about as much sense as the idea that our Father somehow exists without any substance or parts or passions"?You took the words right out of my mouth!Regards,jo
zerinus Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 Great quote.Considering the prime examples in the scriptures of those rigidly focused on orthodoxy even including areas where direct revelation was not given are the Pharisees, I tend to be much more concerned with orthopraxy and more cautious about proclaiming what is 'absolute truth' in regards to open doctrinal matters not bearing on our personal salvation, especially where the scriptures themselves say something along the lines of no man knows save the Father.I don't see us having enough information to make pronouncements on how something must be interpreted lacking actual revelation on the matter considering the implications of what has happened before when new revelation has the potential of turning our understanding upside down (such as in the case of D&C 19 or Joseph's discussion on spirit elements as refined or purer matter rather than something immaterial.)Excuse me my dear, but we do have enough information in this case to make a decision, as presented in post #29.
inquiringmind Posted August 23, 2011 Author Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) Like minds attract each other I guess.Thank you zerinus.You've provided a fine example of a logical fallacy here.It's called the ad hominem fallacy of guilt by association. (And aside from being recognized as a logical fallacy in formal debate, this kind of personal attack is considered bad etiquette on most discussion forums.) Edited August 23, 2011 by inquiringmind
zerinus Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 ExactlyExcept that when the truth about something has been revealed, "philosophizing" about it becomes positively disadvantageous.
zerinus Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 Thank you zerinus.You've provided a fine example of a logical fallacy here.It's called the ad hominem fallacy of guilt by association. (And aside from being recognized as a logical fallacy, this kind of personal attack is normally considered bad etiquette on a discussion forum.)I prefer not to quote from someone if afterwards I am going to be embarrassed by his beliefs as well as his behavior.
Calm Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) Except that when the truth about something has been revealed, "philosophizing" about it becomes positively disadvantageous.I'm not sure how much clearer it could be:D&C 76:45 And the aend thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows; 46 Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof;I am assuming you, zerinus, are not currently a son of perdition and therefore not a partaker of whatever their torment is to be.If I was the type, I could say something along the lines of refusing to accept the plain reading of this scripture, etc. etc. PS: Can you think of a more exquisite torment for the egocentric personality that a son of perdition must be than to know one's ultimate fate is to be resolved back into the eternal particles of whatever it was you originally came from? Edited August 23, 2011 by calmoriah
inquiringmind Posted August 23, 2011 Author Posted August 23, 2011 (edited) The ideas you presented in the OP are not compatible with the Book of Mormon, period. There is no arguments about that. That is the answer to your question.The ideas presented in the OP were those of John WidtsoeExcept that when the truth about something has been revealed, "philosophizing" about it becomes positively disadvantageous.If the absolute truth on this topic was as clearly revealed as you insist, Apostle John Widtsoe, and Prophet (and First President) Brigham Young must have missed it. Edited August 23, 2011 by inquiringmind
zerinus Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 If the absolute truth on this topic was as clearly revealed as you insist, Apostle John Widtsoe, and prophet (and first president) Brigham Young must have missed it.Evidently they did. And in case you wondered, I am not terribly worried about that.
inquiringmind Posted August 23, 2011 Author Posted August 23, 2011 Evidently they did. And in case you wondered, I am not terribly worried about that.It's a shame you weren't there to set them straight at the time.
Calm Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 It's a shame you weren't there to set them straight at the time.Not while I'm eating, mind.....though perhaps this should teach me to not eat at my desk rather than the kitchen table.
zerinus Posted August 23, 2011 Posted August 23, 2011 I'm not sure how much clearer it could be:I am assuming you, zerinus, are not currently a son of perdition and therefore not a partaker of whatever their torment is to be.If I was the type, I could say something along the lines of refusing to accept the plain reading of this scripture, etc. etc. PS: Can you think of a more exquisite torment for the egocentric personality that a son of perdition must be than to know one's ultimate fate is to be resolved back into the eternal particles of whatever it was you originally came from?You are obviously confusing or misunderstanding something. That scripture says that their fate (and the nature of their sufferings) has not been revealed; but one thing HAS been revealed—that their spirit-bodies will not be “disorganized”. Whatever else might happen to them, that is the one thing that we know will not happen to them, because it has been revealed that it will not. Do you get it now? If you don’t, let me know, and I will try a bit harder to explain.
Recommended Posts