Spirit Bodies

[Vance]

I really don't have much interest in the conversation since I'm not at all that concerned with how Protestants and Catholics view spirit. But, some clarity to your conversation will occur with more precision in your physics.

All matter does not have mass. There are massless particles (photons of light being the most common example)

All matter does not necessarily have extension (for example, the electron has a size consistent with 0). Indeed the concept of size is not horribly well defined. We are nevertheless wont to express a size and this size is a parameter which is descriptive of an interaction.

The are four fundamental forces: the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. All the forces of physical matter and an expression of these forces (though, centrifugal force isn't a force at all but a frame of reference effect).

With 15 minutes or so, one can get a very accessible introduction to the Standard Model via the Particle Data Group's Particle Adventure

Good points.

Also there is the conversion of matter to energy (and back again?) through the equation E=mc^2.

[Rob Bowman]

Nofear,

The issues here are rather complex. Photons have zero "rest mass" but do have a functional "mass" in motion; the usual definitions of matter are not clearly applicable to photons. Subatomic "particles" may in and of themselves not have "extension" but they do occupy space, and of course normally they do so in conjunction with other subatomic particles.

I don't want to let these technical minutiae distract us from the issue, which is whether spirits are physical entities with anthropomorphic bodily shape.

I really don't have much interest in the conversation since I'm not at all that concerned with how Protestants and Catholics view spirit. But, some clarity to your conversation will occur with more precision in your physics.

All matter does not have mass. There are massless particles (photons of light being the most common example)

All matter does not necessarily have extension (for example, the electron has a size consistent with 0). Indeed the concept of size is not horribly well defined. We are nevertheless wont to express a size and this size is a parameter which is descriptive of an interaction.

The are four fundamental forces: the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force. All the forces of physical matter and an expression of these forces (though, centrifugal force isn't a force at all but a frame of reference effect).

With 15 minutes or so, one can get a very accessible introduction to the Standard Model via the Particle Data Group's Particle Adventure

Edited September 12, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[altersteve]

I don't want to let these technical minutiae distract us from the issue, which is whether spirits are physical entities with anthropomorphic bodily shape.

Who said anything about spirits being physical? Can you feel them? Just because something is matter doesn't mean it's physical or tangible, something you can hold in your hands. Take oxygen, for example.

Edit: Okay, granted, spirits can touch your heart and mind, like the Holy Ghost does, so you can "feel" them in that sense, but you know what I mean, haha.

Edited September 12, 2011 by altersteve

[LeSellers]

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.

All three of which are actual, physical, things; things were can see, feel, touch, measure.

Your eisegeses fails here.

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.

Only if you reject the concept of matter that is "more refined" than the gross stuff we see, feel, and measure around us every day.

Another case of failed eisegeses.

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.

My wife frequently dreams of me, and I am very much corporeal (even if substantially less so than a couple of years ago).

Yet again, this eisegeses is not useful, and far from conclusive.

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.

Of course: they are not identical. This hardly means they cannot co-exist in the same, gross place (like salt in water), the spirit occupying the interstices between the atoms and molecules of the body.

Eisegeses, don't fail 'im now! (Oooooops! Too late!)

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.

There are two kinds of "spirits" in the scriptures, and it seems you are conflating them into a single idea. I'll use the phrase "the spirit of Elijah" as an example.

• The motivation for people (both within and outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to seek out their ancestry, to discover their human roots.
• Elijah's personal spirit, the one that defines who he is.

The first is incorporeal—only an "influence", not a material "thing". The second is very much a material thing; it occupied the body Elijah had while mortal, and, since he is either translated (not dead, but "held in mortality until a later time without suffering either pain or death") or has already been resurrected, it now occupies his body (in whichever frame it exists).
The same idea affect people's understanding of "the Spirit of God". He has three "spirits":

• His personal Spirit, see the description above about Elijah's.
• The Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit).
• Another material, but not 'human" stuff that fills the universe. It is the means by which They (the members of the Godhead) communicate instantly with us. It is the "Light of Christ" that permeates the entire universe, and by which the Holy Ghost influences us to do good.

Lehi

Edited September 12, 2011 by LeSellers

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

Wade's point is that there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the scriptures. Your point seems to be that there is only one reasonable interpretation of the scriptures, in every case. I will now propose a middle ground.

How about if I agree there are some cases when there are several reasonable interpretations of the scriptures, but that some of those reasonable interpretations of the scriptures are not correct?

Can you agree with that? If so, what method do you propose for finding out which reasonable interpretations of the scriptures are not correct?

Or, to ask that question from the other perspective, what method do you propose for finding out which reasonable interpretation(s) among the many other reasonable interpretations are correct?

I would also like to note that Protestantism, in general, seems to have found a way to consider every sect within itself to have arrived at many, many, many reasonable interpretations of the scriptures while considering every sect within itself to be Christian.

We (LDS) simply ask for the same courtesy, even though in some cases you do not personallly agree with what we consider to be reasonable interpretations of the scriptures which we believe we have arrived at through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

There are instances in the study of the Bible (as of most any text) where the evidence is insufficient to preclude all but one interpretation. However, even in such instances it is usually possible to eliminate all but two or three views, and in such instances usually the differences among the remaining viable options are not terribly significant. 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 then does it mean? 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.

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. 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.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You're right, at least some and perhaps most or all Mormons believe that spirits are material but not physical. I did not word myself precisely enough there.

By the way, oxygen is physical even though it is not normally tangible.

Who said anything about spirits being physical? Can you feel them? Just because something is matter doesn't mean it's physical or tangible, something you can hold in your hands. Take oxygen, for example.

Edit: Okay, granted, spirits can touch your heart and mind, like the Holy Ghost does, so you can "feel" them in that sense, but you know what I mean, haha.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Storm Rider]

1. Is it correct to say that a spirit body occupies space? This seems to be entailed in the statement that spirit beings have a "spirit body" that has "the same bodily form as mortals." This is rather technical and I wonder if it is not be proposed to a scientist that attempts to explain the spiritual. However, from a religious POV, limiting the topic ot our spirit bodies, they do occupy space.
2. If a spirit body occupies space, and if we have now and/or will have after the resurrection both a spirit body and a physical body, will they occupy the same space at the same time? As much a a hand in a glove occupies the same space.
3. If the spirit body is in perfect form, why will the physical body need to be resurrected at all? Doesn't the word "perfect" mean that it lacks nothing? This is a question best asked to Jesus and God the Father; it was and is their plan that our bodies and spirits become reunited after death. The perfect condition is spirit and body; remember the demons hunger for a body. Why do you think that is if not that a spirit is best suited for physical form.
4. To what extent does a spirit body "have the same bodily form" as a physical body? Does it have two eyes, two ears, a mouth, a nose, five fingers, and five toes? Does it have hair? yes, all physical things were first spiritual.
5. 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? Did Jesus have four eyes? Do you think that you have four eyes? This is being purposely obtuse, at least in my humble opinion. Does a glove have ten fingers?
6. What are the purposes of spirit eyes, spirit ears, or a spirit nose in the spirit world, if spirit beings have such bodily parts? For example, are there sound waves in heaven that convey sounds to spirit ears? If so, is there air in heaven (through which the sound waves propagate)? Are there odors or smells in heaven, and again, does this mean there are chemical compounds propagated by microscopic particles through moving air in heaven? If you need to get into this detial then you are going in the wrong direction. Is there music in heaven? Are there choirs of angels? If so, then I assume those present enjoy the sound.
7. If we will have the same appetites and desires in the spirit world that we have in mortality, does this mean we will be hungry and thirsty? May we infer, if the answer is yes, that we will have stomachs and a digestive system to go with them? The purpose of this life is to control our passions. Does it mean that only those that do not learn to control the desires of the flesh suffer? I haven't a clue. I have no idea if stomachs serve the same purpose in the next world nor have I read or heard of any revelation that addresses these speculative issues. It would be gross error to portray any LDS doctrine on this area and topic.
8. Will we have sexual desires, and if so, does this mean our spirit bodies are or will be anatomically comparable to physical bodies in that regard as well? If so, does that mean that spirit bodies can unite to perform reproductive functions--and are designed or formed to do so? Ditto; it may possibly be that they are unneeded in the next life. Some may be called to reproduce while others are not; this, IMO, remains speculation.
9. If spirit bodies are indeed male and female and have the same appetites and desires as physical bodies, including desires oriented toward reproduction, wouldn't this mean that spirit beings should be able to reproduce in the same way (or at least in a very similar way) as physical human beings reproduce? Is there any precedent for this in LDS doctrine? There may be some similarities, but we just do not know. I am curious, why do you think God made our bodies the way he did? Do you think Jesus had the same kind of body we do? If so, when he was resurrected did he return with all the same parts? Why?

I hope I have expressed these questions with sufficient sensitivity and circumspection. It is not my intention to ridicule or caricature. Thank you for any light you can shed on these questions.

You are really getting out there on the edge. I think it folly to attempt to portray anything as LDS doctrine on these topics because there is so little know and there is no real doctrine that addresses these topics in any depth. Speculation is rife among LDS, but no real doctrine. I assume that anyone that attempt to address these issues is only speculating regardless of which religious organization they belong.

[altersteve]

There are two kinds of "spirits" in the scriptures, and it seems you are conflating them into a single idea. I'll use the phrase "the spirit of Elijah" as an example.

• The motivation for people (both within and outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, to seek out their ancestry, to discover their human roots.
• Elijah's personal spirit, the one that defines who he is.

The first is incorporeal—only an "influence", not a material "thing". The second is very much a material thing; it occupied the body Elijah had while mortal, and, since he is either translated (not dead, but "held in mortality until a later time without suffering either pain or death") or has already been resurrected, it now occupies his body (in whichever frame it exists).
The same idea affect people's understanding of "the Spirit of God". He has three "spirits":

• His personal Spirit, see the description above about Elijah's.
• The Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit).
• Another material, but not 'human" stuff that fills the universe. It is the means by which They (the members of the Godhead) communicate instantly with us. It is the "Light of Christ" that permeates the entire universe, and by which the Holy Ghost influences us to do good.

Lehi

Awesome, perfectly said. I always enjoy reading your posts, LeSellers.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

Cool. Here are the answers to your questions.

Not so cool.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Edited September 12, 2011 by zerinus

[mfbukowski]

You're right, at least some and perhaps most or all Mormons believe that spirits are material but not physical. I did not word myself precisely enough there.

Yes and that ends it.

Wind and breath are physical phenomena, fire is a physical phenomenon, spiritual posession can be defined in terms of physical brain states, dreams and physical brain states are clearly physically correlated.

Poof.

No case.

[cdowis]

I understand that. But will they then be two bodies (a spirit body and a physical body) united inseparably, or will they become one body? It would seem they are two bodies now, because they can be separated now (at death).

They are "one substance". I'm sure that you understand what that means.

[LeSellers]

Awesome, perfectly said. I always enjoy reading your posts, LeSellers.

You are very nice to say so.

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 inherited it from my grandfather and I am proud to bear it. My mother-in-law calls me "Lehi", as did (now former—praise the Lord!) Presidents Carter and Clinton, along with the bank that, long ago, owned the mortgage on my house.

Lehi

Edited September 12, 2011 by LeSellers

[mfbukowski]

And then we have the story of three incorporeal persons in one incorporeal God.

I wonder how one counts non-things which are incorporeal.

[mfbukowski]

They are "one substance". I'm sure that you understand what that means.

[mfbukowski]

The problem with the traditional view is that it is totally non-scientific and is incompatible with science. Our view is at least compatible with a scientific view, even if we hold it to be not yet scientifically verifiable.

All the atheist arguments against a "magical" world view hold against the traditional view, but not against ours.

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

To me it would make sense if some kind of physical force entered into and "attacked" the brain of another- of course there is no scientific evidence for such a thing - yet- but at least it makes sense in a scientific context.

But the idea of something incorporeal taking over something corporeal is just absurd. How could such a thing happen?

I don't even know what an "incorporeal thing" IS! What kind of "thing" is it?

I suppose "courage" is incorporeal, but it is not a "thing".

I can't even imagine what class of "things" is being discussed here.

Edited September 12, 2011 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

You are very nice to say so.

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 inherited it from my grandfather and I am proud to bear it. My mother-in-law calls me "Lehi", as did (now former—praise the Lord!) Presidents Carter and Clinton, along with the bank that, long ago, owned the mortgage on my house.

Lehi

Not a problem, Lehi.

[Vance]

We understand matter to refer to the quantifiable stuff of which things in the physical universe are composed.

By this definition, and this statement,

(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.

Spirit MUST BE some kind of matter.

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".

[Zakuska]

<snip>

1. ... (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.

<snip>

Even "Plasma" is material in nature.

In physics and chemistry, plasma is a state of matter similar to gas in which a certain portion of the particles are ionized. Heating a gas may ionize (reduce the number of electrons in) its molecules or atoms, thus turning it into a plasma, which contains charged particles: positive ions and negative electrons. Ionization can be induced by other means, such as strong electromagnetic field applied with a laser or microwave generator, and is accompanied by the dissociation of molecular bonds, if present.^[1]

Edited September 12, 2011 by Zakuska

[wenglund]

Wade,

So, according to you, Billy-Bobbism is a reasonable interpretation of the Book of Mormon that cannot be refuted exegetically.

Not exactly, but close enough. What I wonder is, do you know why his interpretation can't, within his and my inter-faith discussion, be refuted exegetically? I don't believe you do, which is why you have such a huge disconnect.

That's an interesting admission. I'm afraid I don't see any hope of making further progress in our discussion, but I think that it has been illuminating.

I don't think it has been illuminating enough. There is no hope of having a discussion with you as long as you remain dogmatic in your approach. The same cycle of the past will continue to repeat itself over and over. The problem is, as things now stand, you seem incapable of having a reasoned exchange. You don't discuss. You assert and dismiss. The only reasoning you seem capable of accepting as reasonable, is your own. Your approach, while cordial, is highly intolerant and disrespectful of differing points of view, and while it may play well to the home crowd, it doesn't work in inter-faith discourse. I would that you finally get this.

Setting aside your severely flawed caricature of my beliefs, I am unashamed to say that I think some beliefs are wrong and that we can know on rational grounds that they are wrong. I do not see this position as inimical to genuine inter-faith dialogue. On the contrary, I consider it to be a necessary precondition for the honest pursuit of truth in such dialogue.

The problem isn't you thinking beliefs are wrong and may be demonstrated as wrong exegetically or by reason. We all see things that way from our perspective. The problem is you thinking your way of thinking is the only reasonable way to view things, and if others don't grant your reasoning, then they aren't reasonable and are to be dismissed. That may be fine from your position, but it is entirely unacceptable from other points of view, and it is a huge barrier to inter-faith communications as abundantly manifest in the exchanges you have had with we LDS in on this board.

I, personally, believe you are wrong and that your wrongness can be demonstrated through reason, among other things. However, the difference between you and me is, I can still grant that your view is, like other views I may disagree with, reasonable as you understand things. And, as explained earlier, I am not so much interested in adjudicating differences of opinion (since that is an unlikely prospect to begin with), but in coming to a better and tolerant and mutually respectful understanding of differing points of view. This makes it possible for me to have a productive discussion with you and others on your terms and as well as mine. I pray you one day get this, though I doubt you will.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

The same cycle of the past will continue to repeat itself over and over. The problem is, as things now stand, you seem incapable of having a reasoned exchange. You don't discuss. You assert and dismiss. The only reasoning you seem capable of accepting as reasonable, is your own. Your approach, while cordial, is highly intolerant and disrespectful of differing points of view, and while it may play well to the home crowd, it doesn't work in inter-faith discourse. I would that you finally get this.

The problem isn't you thinking beliefs are wrong and may be demonstrated as wrong exegetically or by reason. We all see things that way from our perspective. The problem is you thinking your way of thinking is the only reasonable way to view things, and if others don't grant your reasoning, then they aren't reasonable and are to be dismissed. That may be fine from your position, but it is entirely unacceptable from other points of view, and it is a huge barrier to inter-faith communications as abundantly manifest in the exchanges you have had with we LDS in on this board.

This exactly, precisely, efficiently, nails it!

You don't discuss. You assert and dismiss

Seven truer words were never uttered.

[Rob Bowman]

All,

I'd like to thank bluebell, Ahab, CV75, Questing Beast, Tao, Lehi, zerinus, and Storm Rider for their detailed responses to the questions in my opening post. What I will do here is to try to summarize what was said so as to show what seems to remain unclear.

1. When we are resurrected, will we have two bodies--a spirit body and a physical body? Do we have two such bodies now? This seems to be entailed in the statement that when we are resurrected our mortal bodies will be reunited with our spirits.
   Some said yes; one said no; and some said that in the resurrection what was two bodies might be considered one body or would actually become one body.
2. Is it correct to say that a spirit body occupies space? This seems to be entailed in the statement that spirit beings have a "spirit body" that has "the same bodily form as mortals."
   Everyone said yes, although zerinus said that the spirit body "occupies space in the spiritual realm, which is not identical to the natural realm."
3. If a spirit body occupies space, and if we have now and/or will have after the resurrection both a spirit body and a physical body, will they occupy the same space at the same time?
   Most said yes, although CV75 commented that "they do not each simultaneously occupy the same exact quality or quantity of space" and zerinus said no (see #2).
4. If the spirit body is in perfect form, why will the physical body need to be resurrected at all? Doesn't the word "perfect" mean that it lacks nothing?
   Some explained that the spirit body lacks mortality, deformities, and the like; some explained that the spirit body is perfect as far as it goes but is enhanced or completed by union with a physical body.
5. To what extent does a spirit body "have the same bodily form" as a physical body? Does it have two eyes, two ears, a mouth, a nose, five fingers, and five toes? Does it have hair?
   Everyone answered yes.
6. 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.
7. What are the purposes of spirit eyes, spirit ears, or a spirit nose in the spirit world, if spirit beings have such bodily parts? For example, are there sound waves in heaven that convey sounds to spirit ears? If so, is there air in heaven (through which the sound waves propagate)? Are there odors or smells in heaven, and again, does this mean there are chemical compounds propagated by microscopic particles through moving air in heaven?
   Some thought the functions were or might be the same or similar to physical body parts, some said they did not know; some did not answer at all.
8. If we will have the same appetites and desires in the spirit world that we have in mortality, does this mean we will be hungry and thirsty? May we infer, if the answer is yes, that we will have stomachs and a digestive system to go with them?
   Some implied that the answer might be yes, some that it was likely no, and one was not sure. No one answered with a clear yes.
9. Will we have sexual desires, and if so, does this mean our spirit bodies are or will be anatomically comparable to physical bodies in that regard as well? If so, does that mean that spirit bodies can unite to perform reproductive functions--and are designed or formed to do so?
   Some answered maybe; one (zerinus) said spirit bodies can have sex but do not reproduce; some said spirit bodies neither have sex nor reproduce.
10. If spirit bodies are indeed male and female and have the same appetites and desires as physical bodies, including desires oriented toward reproduction, wouldn't this mean that spirit beings should be able to reproduce in the same way (or at least in a very similar way) as physical human beings reproduce? Is there any precedent for this in LDS doctrine?
    Answers paralleled those to #9.

Thanks again. Further clarifications or alternate perspectives are welcome.

[altersteve]

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

It remains unclear because topics within this area have not yet been fully revealed to us. Beyond what is explained about the nature of spirits in the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, the Book of Ether, and so forth, it's mostly speculation.

[Zakuska]

Apparently Spirits/Angels can eat... Because God sent Moses and his crew some table scraps...

Psalms 78:25

25 Man did eat angels’ food: he sent them meat to the full.

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

You wrote:

Not exactly, but close enough. What I wonder is, do you know why his interpretation can't, within his and my inter-faith discussion, be refuted exegetically? I don't believe you do, which is why you have such a huge disconnect.

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

You wrote:

I don't think it has been illuminating enough. There is no hope of having a discussion with you as long as you remain dogmatic in your approach. The same cycle of the past will continue to repeat itself over and over. The problem is, as things now stand, you seem incapable of having a reasoned exchange.

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

You wrote:

You don't discuss. You assert and dismiss.

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. I, on the other hand, have expressed openness to reasoned arguments defending your interpretations.

You wrote:

The only reasoning you seem capable of accepting as reasonable, is your own.

You are mistaken.

Your approach, while cordial, is highly intolerant and disrespectful of differing points of view, and while it may play well to the home crowd, it doesn't work in inter-faith discourse. I would that you finally get this.

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.

The problem isn't you thinking beliefs are wrong and may be demonstrated as wrong exegetically or by reason. We all see things that way from our perspective. The problem is you thinking your way of thinking is the only reasonable way to view things, and if others don't grant your reasoning, then they aren't reasonable and are to be dismissed. That may be fine from your position, but it is entirely unacceptable from other points of view, and it is a huge barrier to inter-faith communications as abundantly manifest in the exchanges you have had with we LDS in on this board.

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! 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, personally, believe you are wrong and that your wrongness can be demonstrated through reason, among other things. However, the difference between you and me is, I can still grant that your view is, like other views I may disagree with, reasonable as you understand things. And, as explained earlier, I am not so much interested in adjudicating differences of opinion (since that is an unlikely prospect to begin with), but in coming to a better and tolerant and mutually respectful understanding of differing points of view. This makes it possible for me to have a productive discussion with you and others on your terms and as well as mine. I pray you one day get this, though I doubt you will.

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.

[Zakuska]

Angels seem to need really big rolls of toilet paper too...

Zechariah

5:11 Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying

roll.

5:22 And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a

flyingroll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten

cubits.

Edited September 12, 2011 by Zakuska