Spirit Bodies

[zerinus]

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.

Okay, so how big the glove should be, or how small the hand, for how many of them to fit into that glove? Ten? Twenty? A hundred? A thousand? Mark tells us that the man with the "legion" had at least 2000 devils in him, because that is how many swine there were who were drowned when all the devils left him and entered into them. So how big do you want to make your glove, or how small the hands?

...if that were so, then there would be a problem with assuming that a 'adult-sized' spirit fits into a newborn's body.

To me that is another argument against the "hand in glove" analogy, not the other way round.

[cdowis]

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)?

I am happy for you that you have outgrown such childish things.

The point of the analogy is that the body has no autonomous will or power. When the spirit leaves the body, the body is unable to see, smell, or speak -- it is an empty shell.

Evil spirits can possess the body only proves that point. Again, there are not four eyes, two noses, etc. They form one soul.

Edited September 13, 2011 by cdowis

[Ahab]

For example, take the controversy over the meaning of "firstborn of all creation" in Colossians 1:15. We can reasonably eliminate the view that this expression describes Jesus Christ as the first creature that God made, because in the immediate context Paul says that all creation was created in, through, and for Christ (v. 16), precluding the interpretation that Christ was the first creature God made.

What if our Father created all he created by working together with Jesus Christ while Jesus was still a part of our Father and then after Jesus was born our Father continued to create all he created and still creates now by continuing to work together with Jesus Christ? That wouldn't rule out Jesus being the firstborn of all creation, just exactly as the text says he is, and if you go that route you wouldn't have to think some writer/interpreter used the wrong form of the original word which was translated as the word "of" in favor of the word you would rather to see there.

What then does it mean?

What if I say it means exactly what it says, using the word "of" instead of the word "over" which you seem to prefer? What would be unreasonable about that interpretation, since that is the actual word that is used?

Just because you don't understand how it could be correct to use the word "of" doesn't mean it's not the most correct word to use.

Some scholars think it means that Christ is "the firstborn over all creation," construing the genitive "of all creation" as connoting ownership or rule. Others interpret the genitive partitively but understand the expression to mean that Christ, in his incarnation, became the preeminent member of all creation (because he was and is now a human being as well as God). Both of these two remaining views are reasonable, both have exegetical points in their favor, and both are consistent with Paul's Christology.

Okay, sure, those are reasonable interpretations, too. So now we have several reasonable interpretations to choose from. How do you propose we figure out which interpretation(s) are correct, at this point?

I'm thinking that exegesis isn't enough, even though it can lead to some reasonable alternatives, so even when we arrive at reasonable interpretations we still need to have some way to know how we should understand the scriptures.

My claim is not that Mormon interpretations of the Bible are always and necessarily unreasonable or even necessarily incorrect. After all, Mormons and evangelicals agree on some things, such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. My claim is that where our interpretations of the Bible differ, we need to test both of our interpretations by looking at the texts themselves in context.

Okay, but even when we do that we still might not agree on how we interpret or understand the scriptures and one of us could be right while the other is wrong.

This claim does not pre-judge whose interpretation is correct. Bring your interpretations and make your case for them, if you can. If you believe that the Holy Ghost guided you to the correct interpretation, that shouldn't prevent you from offering objective exegetical support to confirm that your interpretation is correct. All I'm asking is that if you're going to cite biblical texts in support of your distinctive doctrinal beliefs, you be prepared to show from the context that you are interpreting the texts correctly.

I'm always prepared to do that, Rob, but what I'm mainly focused on is knowing how to know which interpretation or understanding is correct rather than simply showing which interpretations are reasonable.

Many understandings can be arrived at through reason and they can be very logical while still being totally wrong.

[wenglund]

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.

I look forward to it. In the interim, I will provide my reasoning for Job 4:15-16.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[cdowis]

My claim is that where our interpretations of the Bible differ, we need to test both of our interpretations by looking at the texts themselves in context.

The issue here is that our "context" of interpretation includes all of the word of God, not just the Old and New Testament. I am sure that you would not limit yourself to the Old Testament, for example, when talking about the doctrines of Christ, and why should we limit ourselves as well... unless as an intellectual exercise.

Edited September 13, 2011 by cdowis

[wenglund]

Let's now explore my reasoning for this biblical passage:

"Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up: It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying..." (Job 4: 15-16)

I explained: "Here, the spirit stood and had an image, the exact form of which Job couldn't say. At the very least, the spirit must have had some sort of "body" in order to be seen."

Actually, as I examined this passage more in-depth I realized that it was Eliphaz, a friend of Job, and not Job, who saw the spirit.

Be that as it may, the general context of this passage consists of Eliphaz attempting to counsel Job about what to do to resolve his woes--i.e. Job is to admit to hidden sins and repent to the DORD. And, while the gist of Eliphaz's counsel was later deemed incorrect by the LORD (see Job 42:8-9), I don't believe this negates Eliphaz's experience with the spirit.

The specific context of this passage is a vision that Eliphaz had in the night where he became frightened and saw a spirit pass before his face. The spirit then stood still, and at first Eliphaz couldn't make out a form, but then an image was before his eyes. After a moment of silence, the spirit began to speak about the corruptible nature of mortal flesh (houses of clay and dust) as contrasted with the higher nature of God, the maker of mortal man, and also the higher nature of spirit servants and angels, and implicitly the spirits of men (referred to by the spirit as "excellency").

To me, there are strong implications in this passage that spirits have bodies. First, as with 1 Kings 22:21, the spirit speaking and standing are bodily action that suggest body parts and a body.

Second, the spirit having an "image" is likewise suggestive to me of a body (having some size and shape and dimensions that can be seen and can be seen as an image). The word "image" has several connotations, but the one I like is: "A person or thing that closely resembles another." (see HERE). This brings to mind the passages in Genesis which states: "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth." (Genesis 5:3) The BODY of Seth was the image and likeness of Adam. There is also this passage: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."(Genesis 1:26) Here, the BODY of man is the image of God. See also the biblical passages about "graven images" which are representative of the BODIES of thing that are "in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4), including the "likeness of male or female" (Deut. 4:16)

-continued-

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[HeatherAnn]

Beam me up Scotty!

You're supposed to add, "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes too."

[Nofear]

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!

It is complex, certainly. Alas, I can only think of ways that it doesn't work. One has to balance very carefully the non-interaction of physical matter with spirit matter (otherwise we'd see spirits all the time) with this tightly integrated interaction between our spirit matter body and our physical matter body (e.g. memories are the same between the two bodies). And it's not just a matter of 1 spirit atom to 1 physical atom either. Our infant bodies contain(ed) a fully adult spirit body in it. How does that work? Does the spirit body have independent existence while coupled? Does the motion of our spirit body mimic the motion of our physical body? (If it does, think of a what the fully adult spirit body does when the infant physical body flails its arms.) What about an avatar like scenario? Where are the spirit bodies housed? Is there some spirit building "warehouse" somewhere with a tag above the door that says, "Mortality Experience Station"? It's not necessarily a bad idea, but, suffice it to say, it is not an easy thing.

But all this would be somewhat tangential to Bowman's purpose for the thread. The LDS idea of spirit matter being a form of "matter" seems to be what he'd like to challenge.

[HeatherAnn]

My mom & I were talking about spirits... & I theorized that spirits are much bigger, or somehow different than our bodies.

She made a good point by explaining, "Yeah, how else could a big spirit fit inside a little baby's body? And how could Jesus go through walls as he just appeared inside the room to doubting Thomas?"

I believe what Joseph Smith said about the spirit world being right here - among us.

It's just a question of tuning in...

"Open thou mine eys, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." - Proverbs 119:18

I sitll am wondering about healing spiritually... but maybe that topic is beyond this.

[mfbukowski]

I sitll am wondering about healing spiritually... but maybe that topic is beyond this.

You fix the spirit and the body follows- just as it always does.

I see it along the lines of section 84 where through the priesthood (in the case discussed) one's body is "renewed".

Obviously the priesthood must operate through the spirit.

It will be fun to come back and read this thread in a couple of hundred years after all this is figured out scientifically- we will all sound really dumb!

Clearly, it all comes down to the bumps on our heads and getting the right balance of humours through the aether.

[wenglund]

-continued-

Of particular interest to me is the spirit's declaration to Eliphaz that the human body is a "house of clay."

I don't think this choice of metaphor was coincidental. I believe it correctly conceptualized the truth that the physical body of man is a residence, a dwelling place for his spirit. And, even more particular, it is the resident of the spirit personage or spirit body of man. After all, who is it that dwells in houses? The answer to me is obvious: people--bodily beings.(see biblical search results for house, Job 7:10 in particular.)

To me, this notion of spirits as personages with bodies is further underscored with yet another metaphor in Job: "Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about...I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again...Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews." (Job 10:8-11; see also Job 7:5) Who is it that wears clothes, and upon what are the clothes worn? What is it that the clay has been fashioned "round about", and how can it be fashioned round about unless there is something bodily around which to fashion? Again, to me the answer is obvious: spirit bodies. (see biblical search results for clothed)

We may also gather from the comments of the spirit that the spirit bodies of mankind are of a higher nature and more "pure" than our physical bodies, and are worthy of being called "excellency." (see Job 4:17-21)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

You're supposed to add, "Very funny, Scotty. Now beam up my clothes too."

Speaking of clothes, see my post above.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[HeatherAnn]

You fix the spirit and the body follows- just as it always does.

I see it along the lines of section 84 where through the priesthood (in the case discussed) one's body is "renewed".

Obviously the priesthood must operate through the spirit.

It will be fun to come back and read this thread in a couple of hundred years after all this is figured out scientifically- we will all sound really dumb!

Clearly, it all comes down to the bumps on our heads and getting the right balance of humours through the aether.

Thanks, Mf.

I also believe the spirit & body are interconnected, with often the body reflecting the spirit within.

I've heard that the "book of life" is our bodies - physical & spiritual.

Healing, or fixing the spirit, seems to depend on the healer & the healee.

"As a man thinketh so is he." "According to your faith be it unto you."

Even Jesus spoke of how "cleaning spiritual house" is good only if the house (person) is ready to keep it clean & filled with goodness.

Repentance is correcting one's thoughts... not just cutting out harmful thoughts, but replacing them with better thoughts, & related feelings & actions.

IE When overcoming one addiction, to avoid turning to another addiction, one must overcome the source/reason of the addiction & find healthier ways to cope.

Matt 12:43-45“When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places,seeking rest, & findeth none. Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; & when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, & garnished. Then goeth he, & taketh with himself 7 other spirits more wicked than himself, & they enter in & dwell there: & the last state of that man is worse than the first.”

*One must be ready to be healed…ready to replace the evil for the goodthoughts/feelings/behavior… otherwise it’s cleaning house (internally) only for more evil to reside.

Edited September 13, 2011 by HeatherAnn

[HeatherAnn]

-continued-

Of particular interest to me is the spirit's declaration to Eliphaz that the human body is a "house of clay."

I don't think this choice of metaphor was coincidental. I believe it correctly conceptualized the truth that the physical body of man is a residence, a dwelling place for his spirit. And, even more particular, it is the resident of the spirit personage or spirit body of man. After all, who is it that dwells in houses? The answer to me is obvious: people--bodily beings.(see biblical search results for house, Job 7:10 in particular.)

To me, this notion of spirits as personages with bodies is further underscored with yet another metaphor in Job: "Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about...I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again...Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh, and hast fenced me with bones and sinews." (Job 10:8-11; see also Job 7:5) Who is it that wears clothes, and upon what are the clothes worn? What is it that the clay has been fashioned "round about", and how can it be fashioned round about unless there is something bodily around which to fashion? Again, to me the answer is obvious: spirit bodies. (see biblical search results for clothed)

We may also gather from the comments of the spirit that the spirit bodies of mankind are of a higher nature and more "pure" than our physical bodies, and are worthy of being called "excellency." (see Job 4:17-21)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hi Wade,

Good point. Our bodies are temples of our spirits.

The mention of temples in the scriptures is often aluding to our bodies more than buildings, although temple buildings too, may be symbolic.

What you wrote here reminded me of a "light bulb moment" one time in the temple, as I tried to understand more of the symbolic depth of temple clothes.

When I think of something stressfull, it's almost like I have a robe of stress over my shoulders.

Then when I think of something joyful, it's almost like I have a light helium robe on, that lifts me up.

"As a man thinketh so is he."

It's like this cartoon I saw... of a guy who'd just woke up without a face... & had a bunch of faces (happy, sad, angry, excited, etc) to choose from on his wall.

[zerinus]

I am happy for you that you have outgrown such childish things.

The point of the analogy is that the body has no autonomous will or power. When the spirit leaves the body, the body is unable to see, smell, or speak -- it is an empty shell.

Evil spirits can possess the body only proves that point. Again, there are not four eyes, two noses, etc. They form one soul.

That is not strictly true either. It is true that when the mysterious link that joins the spirit and the body is severed, the body dies; but as long as they are tethered together, they operate as two separate bodies. You can blind someone's natural eyes for example so that he can't see naturally any more; but that does not mean that you have blinded his spiritual eyes. The same goes for all the rest of the organs of his body. The natural body is much more than an empty shell. It is a fully functioning, organic, even intelligent creation capable of interacting with its environment, just as the spirit is able to do in is spiritual environment.

Edited September 13, 2011 by zerinus

[cdowis]

More thoughts:

Evil spirits inhabiting the body. It may be reasonable to assume that they do not have physical possession of the body but are able to exert control over the mind of the individual, thus controlling the body. Some individuals have committed murder under the direct influence of a murderous spirit, for example. They gave control of their mind and body over to that spirit.

Just an idea.

[wenglund]

Hi Wade,

Good point. Our bodies are temples of our spirits.

The mention of temples in the scriptures is often aluding to our bodies more than buildings, although temple buildings too, may be symbolic.

What you wrote here reminded me of a "light bulb moment" one time in the temple, as I tried to understand more of the symbolic depth of temple clothes.

When I think of something stressfull, it's almost like I have a robe of stress over my shoulders.

Then when I think of something joyful, it's almost like I have a light helium robe on, that lifts me up.

"As a man thinketh so is he."

It's like this cartoon I saw... of a guy who'd just woke up without a face... & had a bunch of faces (happy, sad, angry, excited, etc) to choose from on his wall.

Wonderful thoughts. I really like the way you tied the notion of temples to the two metaphors in Job regarding the physical bodies of mankind: 1) temples/bodies are the HOUSE of the Lord as well as our house/bodies, wherein both his and our spirits are to dwell; and 2) Temples are the CLOTHES we wear to cover our "naked" spirit bodies, and to protect us (breastplate of righteousness and faith and love, helmet of hope and salvation, shield of salvation and faith, and buckler of truth), and to act as a symbolic reminder of our covenant and familial relationship with God.

This symbolism (temples, houses, and clothes) within the scriptures offers rich layers of meaning and enlightenment regarding our spirit and physical bodies as manifest throughout the various phases of existence (ore-mortality, mortality, death, resurrection). Fun Stuff!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

That is not strictly true either. It is true that when the mysterious link that joins the spirit and the body is severed, the body dies; but as long as they are tethered together, they operate as two separate bodies. You can blind someone's natural eyes for example so that he can't see naturally any more; but that does not mean that you have blinded his spiritual eyes. The same goes for all the rest of the organs of his body. The natural body is much more than an empty shell. It is a fully functioning, organic, even intelligent creation capable of interacting with its environment, just as the spirit is able to do in is spiritual environment.

One would not call glasses "eyes". If our physical "eyes" act for our spirits much like glasses act for our physical eyes, then we are really talking about two different operations.

I would suggest that our "spiritual eyes" are seeing the physical world through the functioning of the physical apparatus we call "eyes", not that our physical eyes see the physical world and our spiritual eyes see the spiritual world.

If these two operations become one in our resurrected forms (think of how artificial lenses can be placed in our eyes to improve sight), then we will only have one pair of eyes with the capability of viewing all level of spiritual and physical matter at once (I highly doubt that God has to 'switch' on his spiritual eyes in order to see what is going on spiritually, but rather views all realms at once).

Edited September 13, 2011 by calmoriah

[wenglund]

Second, the spirit having an "image" is likewise suggestive to me of a body (having some size and shape and dimensions that can be seen and can be seen as an image). The word "image" has several connotations, but the one I like is: "A person or thing that closely resembles another." (see HERE). This brings to mind the passages in Genesis which states: "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth." (Genesis 5:3) The BODY of Seth was the image and likeness of Adam. There is also this passage: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness..."(Genesis 1:26) Here, the BODY of man is the image of God. See also the biblical passages about "graven images" which are representative of the BODIES of thing that are "in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" (Exodus 20:4), including the "likeness of male or female" (Deut. 4:16)

Expanding somewhat on the notion of "image" as suggesting "body", I found of interest Paul's discussion of different bodies in 1 Cor. 15, especially where he said: "As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly." (1 Cor. 15:48-49)

So, putting this all together, just as Seth's mortal body was the image and likeness of Adam's mortal body, so also are the mortal bodies of mankind in the image and likeness of the Father and Son (the heavenly), our resurrected bodies will be in the image and likeness of the heavenly (the Father and Son). This means that the heavenly (which includes pre-mortal spirits, angels, and Jesus prior to his condescension), mortal man, and resurrected man, all have the same image and likeness. They all, including pre-mortal spirits--which are the spirits in men, have bodies that are the same image and likeness.

This makes sense to me and fits the divine concept of progression and the grand mystery of the plan of salvation, which entails mankind progressing to become like the Father through the Son. "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren."(Romans 8:29) "But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord." (2 Corinthians 3:18) "And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him." (Colossians 3:10)

Perhaps, then, when Paul speaks metaphorically, in 1 Cor. 15, of celestial and terrestrial bodies with different "glories," he might not just be talking about the different glories of resurrected bodies, he may also be talking about the differing glories of pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal bodies as represented by the sun, moon, and stars. Who knows? I mention this as something to think about.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nathair/|\]

My mom & I were talking about spirits... & I theorized that spirits are much bigger, or somehow different than our bodies.

She made a good point by explaining, "Yeah, how else could a big spirit fit inside a little baby's body? And how could Jesus go through walls as he just appeared inside the room to doubting Thomas?"

I believe what Joseph Smith said about the spirit world being right here - among us.

It's just a question of tuning in...

"Open thou mine eys, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law." - Proverbs 119:18

I sitll am wondering about healing spiritually... but maybe that topic is beyond this.

If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.

(You may enjoy the whole poem and his other works.

[zerinus]

Since our friend Rob Bowman has decided not to continue with the discussion I had started with him, I am left with no option but to conclude the discussion without his help. He can still continue to respond if he so wishes.

1. The biblical basis for the claim that spirits are incorporeal is manifold, some of which will become evident as we look at the proof texts that Wade presented in support of spirits being embodied. I'll just highlight a few points of relevance here; this is not exhaustive. (a) Spirits are compared to incorporeal physical phenomena, specifically wind and breath (the literal, physical meanings of pneuma) as well as fire; see especially Hebrews 1:7. (b) Spirits can possess the bodies of human beings (numerous examples in the Gospels and Acts); this is best explained by the view that spirits are incorporeal. © Spirits can actually appear to people in their dreams (e.g., Matt. 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19); this is also best explained by their being incorporeal. (d) Human beings have spirits that are distinct from their bodies; in fact, the Bible often contrasts a person's "body" with his soul or spirit (Is. 10:18; Micah 6:7; Matt. 10:28; Rom. 8:10; 1 Cor. 5:3; 7:34; 2 Cor. 7:1; Col. 2:5; James 2:26). This is odd language if a spirit is itself a body. (e) Biblical passages in which bodily parts or actions are attributed to spirits often contain indications within the immediate context that preclude taking these descriptions literally (we'll see this as we look at such passages).

Thank you. The objections I have to the above explanations is that they either do not establish the incorporeality of spirits at all, or else they define it in ways that we already agree with. Let’s have a brief look at them:

• (a) The comparison of spirits with wind, breath, or fire are metaphors, and they do not establish identity. In Revelation 5:5 for example the lion is used as a metaphor for Jesus. That does not mean that Jesus in any shape or form resembles a lion; not even remotely.
  
• (b) That establishes “incorporeality” in ways that we would agree with. I agree that a man’s spirit and body are two different things, possessing different properties, and consequently a spirit can possess another person’s body. In that sense of the term, I agree that spirits are incorporeal.
  
• (c ) The fact that spirits can appear in dreams does not establish “incorporeality” at all, because corporeal beings can appear in peoples’ dreams as well.
  
• (d) Already answered in (b). See above.
  
• (e) Awaiting your further comments.
  

To summarise, all that you have established by the above arguments is that spirits are “incorporeal” in the sense they do not have natural bodies like we do; which we do not dispute. I entirely agree that in that sense of the term, spirits are incorporeal. This, however, does not mean that spirits do not, or cannot, have a spirit body which establishes their spirit entity, distinct from an physical body (like ours) to which they may be attached, which is our argument. When we say that spirits are “corporeal” or have a “body,” that is what we mean. You have not proved by the scriptures that you have cited that that is not a valid proposition. Do you have any scriptural reference that proves that spirits are not “corporeal,” or have a body, in the sense I have just described?

I had asked Rob to provide biblical evidence that spirits are not corporeal in the sense that that LDS understand it, rather than the sense in which he has described it, and he has failed to provide such evidence. The conclusion must therefore be that he has no such evidence; and he prefers to break off the conversation rather than admit it. The truth is of course that there is no biblical basis for such a claim. All that he has succeeded in proving is that spirits are incorporeal in the sense that they do not have natural bodies like ours, which we have no arguments with. But that is not the issue. The question is whether spirits have spirit bodies which are native to their own spiritual sphere of existence, and composed of whatever elements are indigenous to that particular environment and mode of existence. Evidently he has concluded that he is not able to support his claim with biblical references, and he prefers to break off the conversation rather than to admit it.

2. I certainly don't believe that spirits are nothing. What I mean (and what all orthodox Christians mean) by saying that spirits are incorporeal is that a spirit does not have have a set shape that occupies a certain amount of space.

You need to provide biblical evidence for that, which you haven't dome so far. And biblical references aside, that is inherently an illogical statement to make. If a spirit is made of something, then it is reasonable to expect that within its own realm of existence (whatever that is), it occupies a certain space distinct from another spirit.

He has made two claims here: (1) that spirits are shapeless; and (2) that they do not occupy space. I have asked him to provide biblical evidence for either claim, and he has failed to do so. The conclusion must be that he has no such biblical evidence, and prefers to keep quiet about it rather than admit it. If spirits do indeed appear in the human form, then the default position must be that they are in human form unless proven otherwise, not the other way round.

A related, but not identical, point is that spirits are not material. Orthodox Christians view spirit as a different kind of "substance" than matter. We understand matter to refer to the quantifiable stuff of which things in the physical universe are composed. All matter has some mass, occupies some space, and is subject to physical forces (atomic forces, gravity, electromagnetic forces, centrifugal forces, etc.). Spirits do not have mass, do not occupy amounts of space, and are not subject to physical forces.

When Joseph Smith said that “All spirit is matter,” and “There is no such thing as immaterial matter,” he did not mean to say that spirits are composed of the same material elements of the natural world with which we are familiar, and therefore possessing all of its physical, chemical, or mechanical properties. That was his way of saying that it is made of something, not just out of nothing.

Again, since he has not replied, I must conclude that he has no valid answer to give, and prefers to break off the conversation rather than admit it. Nobody claims that spirits are made of the material elements of this world, and therefore obey all of its physical, chemical, mechanical, nuclear, biological, physiological, morphological laws. But this does not rule out the possibility of their creation out of the materials of their own universe that is governed by physical laws to which that particular environment is subject. His failure to respond leads to the inevitable conclusion that he has no answer to give, but prefers not to admit it.

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.

Exactly, that is the issue. It is an issue for which you need to provide biblical evidence to back up your claims, which you have so far failed to do.

He is basically claiming that a spirit is an amorphous shape-sifter which can assume any shape it likes, without having a fixed shape of its own. He also claims that his theology is biblical and has challenged us to debate with him on the subject without reliance on personal revelation or reference to extra-biblical LDS scripture. I have agreed to all his terms. I have asked him to provide biblical evidence for his beliefs as expressed above, but he has failed to do so, and instead has preferred to break off the conversation rather than admit that he is not able to back up his theology with biblical evidence. This not only proves his theology to be unsustainable biblically, but casts doubt on his sincerity as a debater of the Christian theology.

If spirits by his own admission do indeed appear in human form, then the default position must be that they are in human form—unless proven otherwise by credible biblical evidence, which he has not provided. He wants us to believe that a spirit is an amorphous shape-shifter occupying no space without any biblical evidence to support it; and yet he claims that his position is fully biblical and challenges us to prove otherwise. Something doesn’t seem to me to be going quite right here somehow.

[Maidservant]

As you can see, the "doctrine" of this kind of thing (like many things in LDS theology) is a very simple scaffolding; and the details and a person's understanding of that doctrine (based on their personal study and experiences) is going to have a very wide variety with Mormons holding differing opinions of how the pre- and post-mortal world works. A good reduction of all that could possibly be: we don't really know the mechanics . . . but we sure like to imagine them!

For example, on the matter of sexual desire and reproduction, even most Mormons don't want to touch that with a ten foot pole, to really get to the nitty gritty of the implications (and I do mean implications, not facts) of some of what we do know or believe (that isn't explained in detail). For me, I don't have a problem with that, to me being human is sacred and it is not possible to define something as more sacred than being human (including of course that God is human (Exalted Man)). So I look forward to an eternity of desire and reproduction, yes. And I don't imagine it being anything other than what we now experience except for the absence of loss and sorrow.

Meanwhile, there's this:

I can say a few things here. When I was 19, I died. For how long, I don't know, but my spirit left my body. I was hovering in the room with my body as I looked down on it, it was strapped to a gurney so as not to hurt myself. I percieved myself to have a spirit body that looked just like my dead body. I could see out the window of my room, which would have been impossible from the gurney. I don't recall hearing anything, but there may have been nothing to hear.

From this experience I know that there is life after death, I know that we have a spirit body and that it has the capability to see, it would appear to have to same appearance as our physical body. The next time I die I hope to have the looks of a 19 year old body.

Carry on.

Nothing beats first hand observation, I suppose.

[HeatherAnn]

Wonderful thoughts. I really like the way you tied the notion of temples to the two metaphors in Job regarding the physical bodies of mankind: 1) temples/bodies are the HOUSE of the Lord as well as our house/bodies, wherein both his and our spirits are to dwell; and 2) Temples are the CLOTHES we wear to cover our "naked" spirit bodies, and to protect us (breastplate of righteousness and faith and love, helmet of hope and salvation, shield of salvation and faith, and buckler of truth), and to act as a symbolic reminder of our covenant and familial relationship with God.

This symbolism (temples, houses, and clothes) within the scriptures offers rich layers of meaning and enlightenment regarding our spirit and physical bodies as manifest throughout the various phases of existence (ore-mortality, mortality, death, resurrection). Fun Stuff!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks, Wade.

It is fun stuff!

I may seem like a pain in the petunias sometimes, questioning everything, but really, by doing so, the scriptures have come alive to new, exciting meanings for me!

As you mentioned, the armor symbolism and also the idea of the body of Christ... each serve unique purposes, but are better together than separate - and act as one in purpose.

[zerinus]

One would not call glasses "eyes". If our physical "eyes" act for our spirits much like glasses act for our physical eyes, then we are really talking about two different operations.

I would suggest that our "spiritual eyes" are seeing the physical world through the functioning of the physical apparatus we call "eyes", not that our physical eyes see the physical world and our spiritual eyes see the spiritual world.

If these two operations become one in our resurrected forms (think of how artificial lenses can be placed in our eyes to improve sight), then we will only have one pair of eyes with the capability of viewing all level of spiritual and physical matter at once (I highly doubt that God has to 'switch' on his spiritual eyes in order to see what is going on spiritually, but rather views all realms at once).

I disagree with you on all the points you have made here.

1. Our natural eyes do not function just as "glasses" for our spiritual eyes; but are functional natively as eyes of our natural bodies. Our natural bodies function almost independently as a self contained mechanism independent of our spirits; even though its life is dependent on its link with the spirit.
   
2. The resurrection does not alter that correspondence relationship between the body and the spirit. It simply makes the natural body glorified and immortal. There is no "melding" of the spirit and the body after the resurrection.
   

[HeatherAnn]

(You may enjoy the whole poem and his other works.

Nathair,

Thank you for telling me about William Blake!

"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite."

Beautifully put!

Today, when I was about to leave to go hiking up in nature, I came back for my watch, because when I'm there, it seems timeless.

Some of what Blake wrote of "Memorable Fancy" reminds me of the spirit, passion, what makes life meaningful.

Ok, so many things cannot be proven, or they can be proven not to be scientifically true - but what does that mean?

Just that they are untrue from that perspective of science.

Beliefs cause REAL influence, even if the beliefs themselves are not based on reality.

Much of what is fun, exciting & meaningful in life (laughter, singing, dancing, loving) is based on what raises our spirits, which cannot be scientifically proven.