Spirit Bodies

[ERMD]

Abraham 4 and 5 explain the nature of spirits. It has been said (and I agree) that the creation account in Abraham refers to the spiritual creation of all things. This is not intended to be an explanation based on the Bible, rather one that illustrates the LDS perspective, as I see it.

[Calm]

/>Finally, please be aware of the fact that all orthodox Christians agree that spirits can appear in bodily form for the purposes of interacting with human beings. Most orthodox Christians would even agree that spirits can take physical form for such purposes. The issue is whether bodily form is native or essential to the nature of spirits./>

And that issue would seem to require evidence that these spirits also appear in other non bodily forms, otherwise there is no reason to insist as incorrect the assumption that the spiritual body form is its sole form as opposed to the assumption that such was chosen merely for convenience.

While a simpler assumption is not always the correct one, if there is no actual additional requirement (which does not include force fitting into a previously existing belief) then it makes sense for it to be the preferred one....at least until additional evidence is found.

Edited September 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Along with many others whom I have invited to do so, I ask that you please call me "Lehi": it's really my name.

I think it would be a great idea to ask the mods to change your alias to "Lehi LeSellers" or "Lehi LS" or some such thing so that you won't have to continue to ask....though considering the set formula you use it appears that you enjoy the asking so you can make your comment (assuming you don't have it on permanent copy and paste mode ) so perhaps you shouldn't change it after all.

[Calm]

How precisely does something "incorporeal" "possess" something corporeal??

It would seem to require for "incorporeal" substances to be able to act in physical ways (use physical forces to influence a physical body) which seems to set up a contradiction.

[Calm]

Also, for spirits to be seen with the physical eye they MUST reflect or emit light, another thing of which "the physical universe (is) composed".

Unless they are not actually seen, but instead the brain just thinks it sees them....the only problem with this is that it still needs something physical to cause the brain to perceive (because this requires a change in brain chemistry, etc.). I suppose one can get away from this by claiming it is not the brain that 'sees' a spirit, but the incorporeal mind/soul....but that gets into a big problem, imo, about why something incorporeal interprets its experiences as something corporeal....as well as having to explain how something incorporeal can interact with something corporeal...which is pretty much the same issue as the physical eye seeing something incorporeal so why not just go back to the original problem.

Edited September 12, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

1. If a spirit body is anatomically similar to a physical body, and if we have both a spirit body and a physical body (now and/or in the resurrection), does this mean we have or will have four eyes, four ears, two mouths, and so forth?
   Everyone answered yes except zerinus, who seems to say that we are two persons a spirit and a natural person.

Would like to see the comments you are summarizing this way.

[Calm]

What I will do here is to try to summarize what was said so as to show what seems to remain unclear.

Do you see this as a problem...that somethings in LDS belief are unclear?

[LeSellers]

considering the set formula you use it appears that you enjoy the asking so you can make your comment (assuming you don't have it on permanent copy and paste mode ) so perhaps you shouldn't change it after all.

If I changed it, people would claim I'm lying about it. (That's what they do with Joseph Smith, isn't it?) Still, there are only so many ways I can say the same thing, and the one I've "settled on" gets people's attention. (You, who've seen it many times, have seen it many times. For newcomers, it's new.)

As to a "new name", "Lehi, Grandson of Lehi" might work.

Lehi

[wenglund]

Wade,

You're right. I don't know why it could not be.

Let me see if I can help you understand. In order for Billy-Bob's interpretation to be refuted for the both of us, Billy-Bob would need to agree with my presuppositions, my premises, my interpretations, my exegesis and my use of exegesis and/or not other modes of analysis, and prefer that to his own. In other words, in this clash of paradigms, in order for my paradigm to have sway over his, he would have to abandon his paradigm for mine, without reason to do so. It is not going to happen, nor can it reasonably be expected to happen.

I see other Mormons engaging in exegesis all the time to refute what they consider misunderstandings of the LDS scriptures. I don't know why you could not do the same.

I haven't once said I couldn't. My point isn't that people ought not use exegesis in intra-faith or inter-faith discussions, but rather that one cannot reasonably expect other people to prefer one's exegesis over their own exegesis or their other preferred modes of analysis. What I get that you don't, is that there isn't just one way to reasonably interpret the scriptures. There isn't one reasonable exegesis. There are many. I am pleased to make my case for my interpretation and happy to let others do the same, while allowing each their own in the marketplace of ideas. If someone of a different perspective can see the value in what I say and is persuaded to adopt my point of view, then great. But, if not, it is still beneficial in that we each have the horizons of our understanding expanded. The opposite is the case with people like yourself who take a dogmatic approach. It is a colossal waste of time interacting with dogmatist.

How interesting. I have expressed an interest in a reasoned discussion of the biblical texts you cited. You have made it clear that you don't think such a discussion can be fruitful because, you claim, it is possible to be reasonable in one's reading of the texts and come to differing viewpoints.

Not quite. I think the discussion can be fruitful even if we don't come to an agreement. And, I am also not adamant that there may be no room for agreement. I believe there is. I was simply cautioning against the expectation that your exegesis will have sway over my and other LDS reasonable interpretation of those scriptures. You are the one who seemingly can't bear the thought of that.

However, you now claim that I seem incapable of having a reasoned exchange--but that is precisely the kind of discussion I want!

The word "exchange" signifies to me that the reasoning on both sides is thoughtfully and respectfully considered,and whether agreed to or not, are tolerated and respected, or in other words accepted as reasonable, and to some degree of mutual value. You are certainly capable of expressing your reasoning. What you seem incapable of is respecting opposing points of view. This is so pronounced in you that, at times, you can't even allow your opponentgs to speak for themselves about their own faith. To you, your own dogmatic view of everything is the only view you accept in inter-faith dialogue. That is a huge disconnect, and it doesn't work. The sooner you figure this out, the better.

Apparently you and Billy Bobbers can be reasonable in their beliefs but I cannot be because I am, as you put it, "dogmatic in [my] approach." Everyone is reasonable, according to you, except the person who wants to use reason to settle disagreements!

Wrong. I understand and accept as reasonable your dogmatic reasoning. And, while your dogmatic reasoning may work for you and those who share your dogma, it doesn't work for those with opposing views. Your dogmatic barks, while reasonable in their own right, are relatively meaningless to others. Sadly, though, for you to grasp this important concept, you would have to be open to respecting differing points of view, which you evidently aren't. And, so, around and around we go.

I'm afraid I think you are projecting. You asserted that various biblical texts support the LDS doctrine, and then you dismissed exegetical considerations against your claim as "arm of flesh" reasoning that is trumped by your modern revelations and personal spiritual experience.

Wrong. I didn't dismiss a thing. I explicitly offered to thoughtfully consider your exegetical case, and even if I didn't entirely agree or agree at all with it (which ought not be expected), I wanted to hear what you had to say so as to better understand your reasonable position. So, it is you who is projecting.

I'm sorry, but apparently we have different understandings of what it means to be intolerant or disrespectful. Claiming that your view is without merit if it cannot be substantiated exegetically is not intolerant. Asking for exegetical support for your interpretation is not disrespectful. I am tolerant of your point of view, because to be tolerant means to allow others the freedom to believe whatever they choose. I am respectful of you, because I treat you as a person made in God's image and worthy of consideration, worthy of being heard, worthy of common courtesy. I can be respectful of you as a person while vigorously disagreeing with what you say.

You still aren't getting it. Again, the problem isn't with disagreement, itself, spirited or otherwise. I disagree with you, though not dogmatically. The problem is with your dogmatism, and your not being able to accept that there are reasonable positions that differ from yours--there are different ways of considering the scriptures that will produce different, though reasonable in their own right, interpretations. And, because you are incapable of granting the reasonableness of opposing views, it is pointless for others to attempt to discuss things with you. At best, you will bark your dogma, and we will understand your position somewhat better and say to each their own.

You are again mistaken. I am not claiming that my way of thinking is the only reasonable way to view things. I am simply asking you if you are willing to discuss the exegesis of the biblical texts you cited as a way of determining their relevance to the doctrinal issue at hand. That's it!

Wrong! You went further to require that I agree to your self-serving set of rule for adjudication else you would see no value in proceeding with the so-called discussion. These rules were prompted by your inability to accept that we LDS may not agree with your exegesis. You evidently can't see just how dogmatic you are.

I have not even said you are being unreasonable. I have simply argued that if you are not prepared to subject your proof texts to exegetical study then you should to be consistent eschew all exegetical objections to other people's beliefs.

I am prepared to subject my evidence to your exegesis. In fact, I welcomed it. What I am not prepared to do is grant automatic or likely agreement with your exegesis, even if I thought it reasonable in its own right. But, that wasn't acceptable to you because of your discussion-killing dogmatism.

I have tried to explain why I do not view my approach as intolerant or disrespectful. I hope I have made some progress in explaining my perspective. If you want me to view your position as reasonable, the best thing you could do would be to present your reasons! And the worst thing you could do is to dismiss a request for a reasoned defense of your use of biblical proof texts by claiming that the request is itself intolerant or disrespectful.

I appreciate your self-perspective. I can accept that it seems reasonable to you, and in its own way it is reasonable to me. So, you have made progress in explaining your perspective. However, can you say the same in reverse? Do you now understand that I am okay with you presenting your exegesis? Are you fine with presenting your exegesis even with the good chance that it won't engender agreement? I am also fine with providing the reasoning for my interpretation of the scriptures,beyond what I already have, and this even if it doesn't engender agreement.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 12, 2011 by wenglund

[wenglund]

As I look at my right arm, I can think of at least three physical "bodies" contained therein. There is the skeletal body that is the arm. There is the muscular, vascular, and nervous system body that is the arm. And, there is the epidermal body that is the arm. Each of these "bodies" in their own right may be considered as an arm. And, since I am clothed, there is a 4th right arm that is the right sleeve of my shirt.

With this in mind, perhaps we can ask if there are four "bodies" that are arms, or just one body that is an arm? The answer to me is, both?

Do these bodies occupy the same space? The answer to me is yes and no--they are all contained within the space/parameters of my shirt sleeve, though each occupies there own physical space within the stated parameters.

So, if the mind is able to reasonably conceptualize multiple physical bodies or arms comprising and occupying the space of one physical arm, then what would prevent the mind from reasonably conceptualizing that a living human soul is comprised of both a spirit and physical bodies that occupy the same space but may be considered as one body?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 12, 2011 by wenglund

[Calm]

App accident, ignore

Edited September 13, 2011 by calmoriah

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Let me see if I can help you understand. In order for Billy-Bob's interpretation to be refuted for the both of us, Billy-Bob would need to agree with my presuppositions, my premises, my interpretations, my exegesis and my use of exegesis and/or not other modes of analysis, and prefer that to his own. In other words, in this clash of paradigms, in order for my paradigm to have sway over his, he would have to abandon his paradigm for mine, without reason to do so. It is not going to happen, nor can it reasonably be expected to happen.

If what you mean is that a Billy-Bobber would have to abandon his belief in Billy Bob before he could consider your objections to his use of the Book of Mormon to prove that Billy Bob's coming was prophesied, that seems to me to be another way of saying that genuine dialogue in the pursuit of a true understanding of the Book of Mormon is not possible between you and a Billy-Bobber.

One purpose and value of discussing divergent interpretations of a text is to clear away misunderstandings of the text and to discover just what presuppositions, premises, or paradigms might be controlling the way the text is read. If we agree to discuss the interpretation of a biblical text exegetically, this doesn't mean from my perspective that you have to agree to all of my presuppositions. What it does mean is that we both have to agree to seek together to let the text in its context speak for itself as much as possible, as distinct from reading into the text what we have already decided should be there. In practical terms, this means that we are both trying to show that our reading of the text is correct from the text itself and from material linguistically and historically connected to the text (the surrounding context of the passage, earlier or contemporary writings that use similar language, etc.). Perhaps in the course of discussion we will discover that we have differing presuppositions that lead us to read the text differently. It will then be appropriate to discuss those presuppositions. All I was asking was that you would agree not to "trump" exegetical considerations by appealing to modern revelations or your personal spiritual experience. If you can do that, we should be good to go. If you can't, then discussing the exegesis of the text would seem to be pointless if our mutual goal is to discuss which interpretation of the text is correct.

You wrote:

I haven't once said I couldn't. My point isn't that people ought not use exegesis in intra-faith or inter-faith discussions, but rather that one cannot reasonably expect other people to prefer one's exegesis over their own exegesis or their other preferred modes of analysis.

I have no such expectation of you. I asked you to agree to privilege exegesis over modern revelations or spiritual experiences, not to privilege my exegesis over yours.

You wrote:

What you seem incapable of is respecting opposing points of view. This is so pronounced in you that, at times, you can't even allow your opponentgs to speak for themselves about their own faith.

This is simply false. It is a misrepresentation of what I have been doing in this forum. Even when I state explicitly that I am not characterizing what any particular Mormon might believe, I get accused of this for simply giving my opinion as to what a particular LDS text means. I really find this complaint tiresome. The real dogmatism and disrespect is telling me that I have no right to express my understanding of what Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon said.

You wrote:

Wrong. I didn't dismiss a thing. I explicitly offered to thoughtfully consider your exegetical case, and even if I didn't entirely agree or agree at all with it (which ought not be expected), I wanted to hear what you had to say so as to better understand your reasonable position.

You agreed to hear it but you did not agree to focus the discussion on exegesis as distinct from modern revelations or spiritual experiences that supposedly privilege one interpretation over another. That was the problem.

You wrote:

I am prepared to subject my evidence to your exegesis. In fact, I welcomed it. What I am not prepared to do is grant automatic or likely agreement with your exegesis, even if I thought it reasonable in its own right. But, that wasn't acceptable to you because of your discussion-killing dogmatism.

Again, I don't expect you to grant automatic agreement with my exegesis. All I asked was that you make your case exegetically.

You wrote:

I appreciate your self-perspective. I can accept that it seems reasonable to you, and in its own way it is reasonable to me. So, you have made progress in explaining your perspective. However, can you say the same in reverse? Do you now understand that I am okay with you presenting your exegesis? Are you fine with presenting your exegesis even with the good chance that it won't engender agreement? I am also fine with providing the reasoning for my interpretation of the scriptures,beyond what I already have, and this even if it doesn't engender agreement.

I understood previously that you had expressed openness to me presenting my exegesis. I was and am fine with you not agreeing with my exegesis, if that is the outcome. Are you fine with limiting the discussion of specific biblical texts to exegesis (not "my" exegesis, but simply exegesis, the study of the text in its context)? That is what I have been asking all along.

[wenglund]

I would have thought that the rationale would have been self-evident for the scriptures I presented in support of the belief that spirits have bodies, and where they are not self-evident, that the additional explanation I supplied would have sufficed. Evidently, in Robs case, it did not.

So, for his benefit, I will expound further on each of my "proof texts", starting with:

"And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him." (1 Kings 22:21; see also 2 Chronicles 18:20)

I previously intimated that, "Evidently, this spirit had a mouth with which to speak and legs upon which to stand." To me, the actions of speaking and standing, in the literal senses of those words, are bodily functions that are strongly implied in this passage. The verb "said" suggest to me the presence of a bodily instrument, like a mouth and vocal cords, capable of conveying the recorded words. The verb "stand" suggest to me bodily elements, like legs, that are capable of supporting oneself in an upright position "before the LORD". Further, the preposition "before," to me means "in front of", and suggests a locational relationship between two objects or bodies, which bodily relationship suggests limited size, shape, and a "front" position to that shape. All of this suggests to me that spirits have bodies of limited size and shape with mouths and legs and a front.

The context of this passage is somewhat complex, and involves, in part, Micaiah having beheld God upon his throne with the hosts of heaven standing on God's right hand and left hand, and where a discussion ensued about persuading Ahab to go up and fall at Ramothgilead. After several offers were made, the spirit in question (presumably one of the hosts of heaven) stood before the LORD and volunteered to persuade Ahab.

The context of this passage further suggests to me the image of a multitude of spirits with bodies standing before the LORD and speaking, and is thus consistent with the passage in question, and reasonable support for the proposition of spirits having bodies.

Now, this literal interpretation isn't necessitated by the passage or the context, though neither is it denied, but in my estimation it is a reasonable interpretation thereof.

And, granted, while it is also evident that Zedekiah thought Micaiah had falsely usurped Zedekiahs right to prophesy and to speak for the LORD, he didn't question the particulars of what Micaiah claimed to have seen--i.e. he didn't question that spirits host of heaven have bodies that may stand before the LORD on his right hand and left, and so to me the biblical evidence stands. Indeed, had Micaiah's claimed vision been at odds with the prevailing view of the nature of spirits and heavenly matters, it would have carried no credibility. But, as it were, it was viewed as having at least some credence.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

It would seem to require for "incorporeal" substances to be able to act in physical ways (use physical forces to influence a physical body) which seems to set up a contradiction.

Yep.

See you said it much better again!?

[mfbukowski]

Unless they are not actually seen, but instead the brain just thinks it sees them....the only problem with this is that it still needs something physical to cause the brain to perceive (because this requires a change in brain chemistry, etc.). I suppose one can get away from this by claiming it is not the brain that 'sees' a spirit, but the incorporeal mind/soul....but that gets into a big problem, imo, about why something incorporeal interprets its experiences as something corporeal....as well as having to explain how something incorporeal can interact with something corporeal...which is pretty much the same issue as the physical eye seeing something incorporeal so why not just go back to the original problem.

Yep! That is the whole contradiction! Nicely stated!

I suspect it all comes down to "substance" somewhere! Pretty amazing stuff, that "substance"- it can be anything you need it to be in your argument! Flesh, bread, spirit, "being", angels, lead, gold, anything!

[wenglund]

Wade,

If what you mean is that a Billy-Bobber would have to abandon his belief in Billy Bob before he could consider your objections to his use of the Book of Mormon to prove that Billy Bob's coming was prophesied, that seems to me to be another way of saying that genuine dialogue in the pursuit of a true understanding of the Book of Mormon is not possible between you and a Billy-Bobber.

I respect that it may seem that way to you. However, it seems to me that the only chance of having a genuine dialogue in this hypothetical case is for me to accept Billy Bob's view as reasonable in its own right, though I may not agree with it, and to approach him on his terms as well as mine, not solely for the purpose of possibly adjudicating our differences, but also for the purpose of sharing our respective perspectives and chance broadening the horizons of our understandings. In my experience, there is no chance of a genuine dialogue if I resort to dogmatism, even under the guise of exegesis.

One purpose and value of discussing divergent interpretations of a text is to clear away misunderstandings of the text and to discover just what presuppositions, premises, or paradigms might be controlling the way the text is read. If we agree to discuss the interpretation of a biblical text exegetically, this doesn't mean from my perspective that you have to agree to all of my presuppositions. What it does mean is that we both have to agree to seek together to let the text in its context speak for itself as much as possible, as distinct from reading into the text what we have already decided should be there.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, such is a subjective enterprise, and to some significant extent, the influence of our respective paradigms in supposedly letting the context speak for itself, is unavoidable. There is no rational way to divorce meaning from paradigms (which is essentially language). The context of the text can't speak absent the context of language and meaning and interpretation (i.e. paradigms). This means that the context may unavoidably speak different things to people of different paradigms. Exegesis won't prevent that. In fact, it may simply be a manifestation thereof.

Does this mean we can't have a genuine dialogue and exegetical exchange? No, of course not. Does it mean that we are beyond at least some meeting of the minds? Again, no. Does it mean that there is a good chance that we may not entirely agree as to what the contexts says for itself? Yes, and that is okay and to be expected. Does the lack of complete agreement mean that there is no value in sharing our different perspectives and reasoning? I don't think so. I find myself benefited by seeing things from a different perspective and having the horizons of my understanding expanded. But, to each their own.

In practical terms, this means that we are both trying to show that our reading of the text is correct from the text itself and from material linguistically and historically connected to the text (the surrounding context of the passage, earlier or contemporary writings that use similar language, etc.). Perhaps in the course of discussion we will discover that we have differing presuppositions that lead us to read the text differently. It will then be appropriate to discuss those presuppositions. All I was asking was that you would agree not to "trump" exegetical considerations by appealing to modern revelations or your personal spiritual experience.

Yes, I understand that is what you were asking. And, I saw no value in agreeing to that condition, and I reasonably explained why. I am not prepared to surrender or even subordinate my own God-given preferred methods of analysis to the man-made method of exegesis. Does this mean that I am incapable of reasonably considering and discussing your exegesis or presenting exegesis of my own? No. That is quite possible. Does this mean that your exegesis may not bear sway with me, and mine with you? Yes, and expectedly so, though there is a chance that I might concede to some points. Does the potential lack of sway mean that no value is possible from such an exchange? Not in my opinion.

If you can do that, we should be good to go. If you can't, then discussing the exegesis of the text would seem to be pointless if our mutual goal is to discuss which interpretation of the text is correct.

Again, I am not willing to do that. So, uou are free to make your exegetical case absent the self-serving conditions, or not. Suite yourself.

If, what you are looking to do is restrict the discussion to just exegetics, I am fine with that as well--with the understanding that for me the exegetics don't trump my God-given interpretive methodologies.

[Delete repeation of the same'ol]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 12, 2011 by wenglund

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

Thanks for sharing your explanation as to why you think 1 Kings 22:21 reveals that spirits have bodies. I appreciate the effort. I will be happy to explain how I view this verse. Due to time constraints, it will probably be tomorrow sometime.

[cdowis]

Well, for those who are interested, let me give my view.

I think the glove analogy fits the relationship between the spirit and body very well. The glove has no life, no movement, no abilities outside the hand that wears it. It is merely a covering for the hand, but can give it additional abilities. It protects it from extreme heat or cold.

The physical body has no sight, no taste, no movement outside the spirit body. Thus, there are not "four eyes", etc, anymore than a hand wearing a glove has ten fingers. One of the major purpose of this life is to gain that physical body to give our spirit bodies additional capabilities. The body cannot alone reproduce and neither can the spirit. It cannot act independent of the spirit.

And this gives answer to the question why the resurrection is necessary. Like the glove gives the hand additional abilities, the physical and spiritual bodies come together in the resurrection, as necessary for perfection. To become one with the Father, we must be resurrected with a perfect body, to inherit all that the Father has, even as Christ was resurrected.

The ability to reproduce is restricted to those who gain exaltation. There are different degrees in the resurrection. Those going to "heaven" will never know the joy of eternal increase.

While our friend ignores my "one substance" comment, it is indeed the relationship between the physical and spirit bodies. Again there are no four eyes, two mouths, etc. They are one for eternity, never to be separated again. They form the totality of our eternal existence.

Hope that brings some clarity.

Edited September 13, 2011 by cdowis

[zerinus]

Unless they are not actually seen, but instead the brain just thinks it sees them....the only problem with this is that it still needs something physical to cause the brain to perceive (because this requires a change in brain chemistry, etc.). I suppose one can get away from this by claiming it is not the brain that 'sees' a spirit, but the incorporeal mind/soul....but that gets into a big problem, imo, about why something incorporeal interprets its experiences as something corporeal....as well as having to explain how something incorporeal can interact with something corporeal...which is pretty much the same issue as the physical eye seeing something incorporeal so why not just go back to the original problem.

One can see spiritual things only with one's spiritual eyes; but because of the correspondence relationship that exists between the spirit and the body, when by the will of the Lord that channel of communication is opened, it enables the body, or the natural man, to see through the spiritual eyes, or rather, perceive what is seen by the spirit as though it were seen with the natural eyes. In the spirit, there is an equivalence between seeing and perceiving or understanding. Here are some scriptural references that point this out.

When Moses saw God, he realized that he had seen Him with his spiritual eyes, not with natural eyes:

Moses 1

:

11 But now mine own eyes have beheld God; but not my natural, but my spiritual eyes, for my natural eyes could not have beheld; for I should have withered and died in his presence; but his glory was upon me; and I beheld his face, for I was transfigured before him.

Enoch had the gift of seership bestowed on him, by which he was able to see things that were not visible to the natural eye:

Moses 6

:

36 And he beheld the spirits that God had created; and he beheld also things which were not visible to the natural eye; and from thenceforth came the saying abroad in the land: A seer hath the Lord raised up unto his people.

And these quotes from the D&C amplify and clarify the same doctrines:

D&C 67

:

10 And again, verily I say unto you that it is your privilege, and a promise I give unto you that have been ordained unto this ministry, that inasmuch as you strip yourselves from jealousies and fears, and humble yourselves before me, for ye are not sufficiently humble, the veil shall be rent and you shall see me and know that I am—not with the carnal neither natural mind, but with the spiritual.

11 For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God.

12 Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind.

D&C 76

:

19 And while we meditated upon these things, the Lord touched the eyes of our understandings and they were opened, and the glory of the Lord shone round about.

20 And we beheld the glory of the Son, on the right hand of the Father, and received of his fulness;

21 And saw the holy angels, and them who are sanctified before his throne, worshiping God, and the Lamb, who worship him forever and ever.

D&C 110

:

1 The veil was taken from our minds, and the eyes of our understanding were opened.

2 We saw the Lord standing upon the breastwork of the pulpit, before us; and under his feet was a paved work of pure gold, in color like amber.

D&C 138

:

11 As I pondered over these things which are written, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord rested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the dead, both small and great.

12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;

Edited September 13, 2011 by zerinus

[Calm]

This does not explain, however, what allows the correspondence to occur.  I would suggest that at least one requirement is that it must in part be physical in order to have an effect on something of a physical nature.  Logically this leads to the concept that the spirit is also of a physical/material nature...which accords with revelation as well.

Just to be clear, there is no known mechanism for the interaction of the material with the material, though lack of knowledge does not prevent its existence. However, there are known mechanisms for the material to interact with other materials, so unless there are other requirements---and I do not believe there are---spirit as material, though refined and of a more evolved quality than our mortal shells, should be the default position.

Edited September 13, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Well, for those who are interested, let me give my view.

I think the glove analogy fits the relationship between the spirit and body very well. The glove has no life, no movement, no abilities outside the hand that wears it. It is merely a covering for the hand, but can give it additional abilities. It protects it from extreme heat or cold.

The hand in glove analogy may be useful for teaching primary kids about the spirit and the body; but it is a very poor analogy beyond that level. How do you explain by that analogy the possession of one body by multiple spirits (Mark 5:9; 12:43-45; Luke 8:3; 11:24-26)?

[Calm]

<br /><font color="#8B0000">The hand in glove analogy may be useful for teaching primary kids about the spirit and the body; but it is a very poor analogy beyond that level. How do you explain by that analogy the possession of one body by multiple spirits (Mark 5:9; 12:43-45; Luke 8:3; 11:24-26)?</font><br />

Assuming these are accurate accounts, there is no reason not to suppose multiple 'hands' inside the 'glove' of a human body. One does not need to take the metaphor to the extreme of a 'perfect fit' that allows for no additions....if that were so, then there would be a problem with assuming that a 'adult-sized' spirit fits into a newborn's body.

[zerinus]

This does not explain, however, what allows the correspondence to occur. I would suggest that at least one requirement is that it must in part be physical in order to have an effect on something of a physical nature. Logically this leads to the concept that the spirit is also of a physical/material nature...which accords with revelation as well.

How the spirit and the body are hooked up together has not been revealed in any scripture that I know of. The mechanism may be too complex for us to understand. It reminds me of the Avatar movie. Maybe that is how it works!

[Calm]

;Lehi, Grandson of Lehi/>

I love it! Go for it.

[Calm]

<br /><font color="#8B0000">How the spirit and the body are hooked up together has not been revealed in any scripture that I know of. The mechanism may be too complex for us to understand. It reminds me of the Avatar movie. Maybe that is how it works! <img src='http://www.mormondialogue.org/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /></font><br />

Which would be a physical mechanism.