Is The Spirit In 1 Kings 22:19-23 Embodied Or Incorporeal?

[CV75]

technically, spirit bodies are physical. I imagine that's how the Latter-day Saints here understand it as well.

I agree with this, but on such a different level than mortal bodies being physical that we must emphasize the distinction between them so as to articulate the plan of salvation.

[mfbukowski]

I agree 100% and believe it is consistent with my statements, as follows:

Spiritual matter is so refined and pure that we cannot measure its mass by our mortal reckoning. I’m certain that God can weigh it and that the spiritual world has its own “physical” laws that we cannot discern or measure with the mortal tools at our disposal. In many respects I think that spirit-to-spirit interaction seems as “physical” to spirits as mortal-to-mortal interaction appears to us, though once we are in a position to compare them, we would find the mortal experience to be far richer and meaningful, in accordance with the plan of salvation.

I do not believe the more refined spiritual matter occupies the same locale as its coarser physical matter counterpart at the same time on the most quantum level, but that the grosser things made of physical and spiritual matter (the body and the spirit) appear to occupy the same space at the same time once they are “connected”.

I think we corresponded a bit on helium occupying the same space as a balloon, rum as cake, etc. – not particle-for-particle, but in their new identity as a floating balloon or tiramisu, with the gas and the alcohol being “more refined” substances in relation to the latex and the cake. Likewise, the connected spirit and body become a new entity, the soul. This does not mean the spirit fills the body like a gas fills a balloon (imagine a hymn about that! Better as a limerick…), but that they are connected by the power of God to form a soul, and once they are connected, the soul constitutes a new entity in which its compound of physical matter (as a more organized physical body) and of spiritual matter (as a more organized spirit body) share the space called the soul.

I think it is clear that we are on the cutting edge of discoveries yet to come. If you google "physics" mixed with different variations of "consciousness" you will get many many hits, including ones about the physicist (incidentally an atheist) named Roger Penrose who has done some interesting but controversial work in this area.

On the other hand, I think other Christian theologies are hopelessly stuck literally in the dark ages. That of course is not to say they are "wrong"- just that they appear to be anti-intellectual as a consequence, whereas we have nothing to fear from such scientific advances.

To be both anti-intellectual and non-Biblical I think is a fatal flaw of some opinions expressed on this thread.

[Zakuska]

zerinus,

I'm not trying to define Mormons' terms. I have quoted several statements from GAs and other Mormon leaders who use the term physical in reference to a body other than the spirit body--a body of flesh and bones.

Can anyone provide a single quotation from any Mormon authority or theologian who says that spirit bodies are physical?

Do Anti-Nicean fathers count?

Origen even noted that the text John 4:24 "God is spirit" was initially understood as proof ***against*** incorporeal thinking!

"I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the declaration of our own scriptures, God is a body, because they find it said in the Gospel according to John that God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship

Him in spirit and in truth. Spirit according to them is to be regarded as nothing less than a body." (Paulsen, p. 109).

The Greek term "pneuma" literally meant air, or breath, thus implying that spirit is both material and corporeal. Interesting also, for the Christian Stoics, since existence is confined to material bodies, God being a spirit, was only the purest of all bodies! (Paulsen, p. 109).

Fascinating too is the fact that Origen argues against the Christians who believed the corporeality of God! In "De Principiis" he argues that scriptures that describe God as spirit, fire, light, etc., which, literally understood, would indicate that God is corporeal, so Origen says they ought to be understood allegorically instead!

In "Homily III" Origen acknowledged that Jews as well as Christians supposed that God should be understood as a man, that is, adorned with human members and human appearance. Origen notes that the philosophers despise these stories, therefore, to keep the peace with them, he tries to convince the Christians that God speaks, but not really with a mouth! God has passions, anger, hate, love, but not in the Christian way of thinking, but rather as the philosophers think, as allegorical! Origen specifically says that the learned Melito was among the prominant and prolific Christians of the second-century who believed that God is embodied. In his "Selecta in Genesim" he links Melito as *among* the Christians who taught that God has a body in the form of humans. ("Prius discutiendum est ubi consistat illud, ad imaginem, in corpore, an in anima. Et in primis videamus, quibus utanur qui prius asserunt; e quorum numero est Melito, qui scripta reliquit, quibus asserit Deum corporeum esse." in Paulsen, p. 112). Gennadius affirms that Melito was responsible for a sect of Christians who followed him in the belief that the bodies of humans are made in the image of God.

Origen also noted that Celsus argued at length against his [Celsus] understanding of the Christian belief that God is corporeal by nature and has a body to be in human form. (Paulsen, p. 113).

Augustine, in fact, would not at first join the Christians because of their belief in divine corporeality, especially as it related to Deity! From his youth and for many years thereafter, because of the teachings of his mother, who was a devout Christian, Augustine understood Christians to believe that God is embodied. They taught that God was corporeal. Augustine acknowledges that belief in God's corporeality was *still* found among contemporary Christians, whom he mocked for not being able or willing to interpret the Bible allegorically. (Paulsen, p. 115f).

In addition, let me add some Early Christian Thinkers views on this here:

from the Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., "The Ante-Nicene Fathers" (hereafter cited as ANF), Eerdmans, reprint Oct. 1979.

Iranaeus says of the early Christians "...they imagine that He [God] sits after the fashion of a man, and is contained within bounds..." (Vol. 1, p. 465). Obviously this was an Early Christian conception, otherwise why would Iranaeus, who adapted later Greek philosophy, be trying to refute it?

Tertullian notes that "This for certain is He who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not none. For who will deny that God is a body although God is a spirit? (John 4:24). For spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Whatever therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a person, I claim for it the name of Son; while I recognize the Son, I assert the distinction as second to the Father." Now interestingly, in the footnote, the editors themselves note "This doctrine of the soul's corporeality in a certain sense is treated by Tertullian in his "De Ressur. Carn" xvii and "De Anima" v. By Tertullian, spirit and soul were considered identical." (ANF, Vol. 3, p. 467).

Origen in speaking of the resurrection and man being made in God's image says that the argument arose of "whether God of all things is clothed with a body... He was with some material covering "that the likeness of the life of God, may be in the end produced also in the saints." (Origen, "De Principiis", ANF., vol. 4, p. 345).

Hippolytus in his "Elucidations" went so far as to proclaim that the maxim "Know thyself" means to "discover God *within* thyself, for he has formed thee after his own image." (ANF., vol. 5, p. 153).

Arnobius in his treatise "Against the Heathen" noted that they limit the gods by forms, "you even confine them to the human figure." (ANF., vol. 6, p. 467).

He was arguing for a God without human form, because that was the currently held conception!

Arnobius even asked them "Does God speak?" (he went into great detail to show that the human form has all sorts of vulgarities and was shocked that a God was in this form) "He may in his own, but not in our way." (ANF, vol. 6, p. 468). So far had he come from what the Bible taught of God! Arnobius concludes his treatise with "There is but one thing man can be assured of regarding God's nature, to know and perceive that nothing can be revealed in human language concerning God." (ANF. vol. 6, p. 469). Yet the Bible so very obviously contradicts his premise here, that it scarely needs mentioning!

Tatian "To the Greeks" does note that God is a spirit, not pervading matter, but the maker of material spirits, and of the forms that are in matter. In the footnote it is claimed that Tatian asserts spirits to be material though not fleshly. (ANF, vol. 2, p. 66). Here clearly, Early Christians agree that there is not an opposition in spirit and matter.

Clement in the fragments asks "What is God? God, as the Lord sayeth, is a spirit. Now spirit is properly substance, incorporeal (that is it does not consist of a body). (ANF, vol. 2, p. 585). So the spirit is not the material body, but it ***is*** substance. And we have Jesus as proof positive that God ***IS*** a spirit, yet clothed with a physical, corporeal body, fused together forever.

In Origen's Commentary on John we read that the Father is the arche of Christ who is the arche of man. Yet "men are according to the image, but the image according to the Father" Who of course, is the arche for the image of God for Christ and men. (ANF, vol. 10, p. 307).

http://www.ida.net/g...irtail/gods.htm

Edited September 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[mfbukowski]

Dan,

Let me summarize:

When any LDS leader or teacher fails to use the word physical, whatever he says cannot mean or imply that the spirit is not physical. When any LDS leader or teacher does use the word physical and contrasts it with the spirit (even the "spirit body"), he is just speaking colloquially and his wording should not be pressed. Ergo, all spirit is not only matter, but all spirit is physical.

Using a similar ambiguity against you, we could easily assert that since babies who have never heard of Christ are not "saved", since they have not accepted Christ as their savior, they burn forever in h***, right?

[maklelan]

Dan,

You wrote:

How about calling the mortal body "mortal"?

This doesn't address the physical dichotomy, it addresses the dichotomy between mortal and immortal. How do we address their positions on opposite ends of the spectrum of physicality? Keep in mind in the LDS view the resurrected and immortal body will be on the same end of the spectrum of physicality as our current "mortal" bodies, so whatever word you choose should be able to cross the line of mortality (thus "mortal" doesn't really work). You can't use the word "physical," though, and it has to be generic enough for the Sunday morning General Conference audiences.

[mfbukowski]

zerinus,

I'm not trying to define Mormons' terms. I have quoted several statements from GAs and other Mormon leaders who use the term physical in reference to a body other than the spirit body--a body of flesh and bones.

Can anyone provide a single quotation from any Mormon authority or theologian who says that spirit bodies are physical?

The entire point here is that they have used the word "physical" in a different way than the way you are using it, just as you use "salvation" in a different way than we do.

If you want to play the ambiguity game, that sword cuts both ways.

We should be trying to reach some level of UNDERSTANDING here- many LDS have told you the same thing- if you are only here to play games, be my guest.

I am still looking for any theology of what ANY kind of an "immaterial" thing could be- an issue which you have consistently, as usual, avoided.

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You're putting the burden of proof on me when I have already given you several quotations from GAs and other LDS theologians that at least seem to support my interpretation, and you have provided not one that disagrees. Can you cite one LDS authority or theologian who says that spirits or spirit bodies are physical?

This doesn't address the physical dichotomy, it addresses the dichotomy between mortal and immortal. How do we address their positions on opposite ends of the spectrum of physicality? Keep in mind in the LDS view the resurrected and immortal body will be on the same end of the spectrum of physicality as our current "mortal" bodies, so whatever word you choose should be able to cross the line of mortality (thus "mortal" doesn't really work). You can't use the word "physical," though, and it has to be generic enough for the Sunday morning General Conference audiences.

[maklelan]

Dan,

Let me summarize:

When any LDS leader or teacher fails to use the word physical, whatever he says cannot mean or imply that the spirit is not physical.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Can you provide an example?

When any LDS leader or teacher does use the word physical and contrasts it with the spirit (even the "spirit body"), he is just speaking colloquially and his wording should not be pressed. Ergo, all spirit is not only matter, but all spirit is physical.

You say "not only matter" as if saying something is matter does not automatically indicate it is physical. In any conversation in any other context with any other person, would you ever assume that when a person said something was "material" "substance" that was made of "elements," they did not rather clearly indicate something was "physical"?

Joseph Smith explicitly places the spirit on the same plane of physicality as the mortal body in this quote you shared:

In tracing the thing to the foundation, and looking at it philosophically, we shall find a very material difference between the body and the spirit; the body is supposed to be organized matter, and the spirit, by many, is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ, and state that spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body.

I don't see any dichotomy between spirit and physical body. I see both being placed on opposite ends of the spectrum of physicality. This is engaging a question entirely different from that being engaged by comments about the spirit's existence apart from the "physical body."

Hey, if you want to advocate for this interpretation of LDS doctrine, go for it. Such a doctrine would be even easier to refute than the more philosophically sophisticated claim that spirit is somehow a finer and purer form of matter than the matter comprising physical objects.

I'm just clarifying what we actually believe for you, Rob. The little jabs about being philosophically unsophisticated don't really bear on the discussion.

[Rob Bowman]

Zakuska,

You wrote:

Do Anti-Nicean fathers count?

No. But in fact nothing you quoted (most of which was third-hand) shows that the ante-Nicene fathers thought that spirits were physical.

[Zakuska]

Opposite ends of the spectrum?

That would make spirit Anti-matter!?

[maklelan]

Dan,

You're putting the burden of proof on me when I have already given you several quotations from GAs and other LDS theologians that at least seem to support my interpretation, and you have provided not one that disagrees. Can you cite one LDS authority or theologian who says that spirits or spirit bodies are physical?

I've already shown several, as have you. I rest the conclusion on the fact that "material," "elemental," and "substance" are unquestionably synonyms for physical. I wouldn't imagine that this was a parallel that had to be explicitly evidenced. Obviously none of these authors have ever had to directly engage an antagonist who insisted we believed in material substance that is not physical, so I can't provide a text that says "by the way, material substance is indeed physical." You're now trying to capitalize on that circumstance without addressing the problems I describe above.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

No. But in fact nothing you quoted (most of which was third-hand) shows that the ante-Nicene fathers thought that spirits were physical.

The Christians they were debating against sure did. Not only composed of matter but also corporeal. The ANF were the ones arguing for Alligorical reading of the text as to aline their teaching with the emerging Greek Philosophers.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Zakuska

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

As I understand it, and as subsequent Mormon interpreters seem to understand it, Joseph Smith's description of spirit as "more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body" indicates that it is not the same kind of matter as what we denote as physical. But I don't want to debate this endlessly. If you want to use "earthly" or "terrestrial" or some other term in place of physical, that's all right by me. Joseph's own vocabulary almost always used the term body in reference to the earthly, physical body, but later Mormons eventually began routinely speaking of humans as having both a "spirit body" and a "physical body." Whatever they meant by this distinction, they clearly taught that humans have two distinct bodies, one of which is subject to what we understand to be physical laws and the other of which is not.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[Vance]

Is there any Latter-day Saint here who disagrees?

It certainly is about semantics.

I have been using "physical" as a synonym of "element" as a distinction from "spirit" as used in this verse.

D&C 93:33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

Others have been using "physical" as a synonym of "material" as a distinction from "immaterial".

Of course, Bowman likes to use variations in semantics as a cudgel.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Vance

[Ahab]

Dan,

You're putting the burden of proof on me when I have already given you several quotations from GAs and other LDS theologians that at least seem to support my interpretation, and you have provided not one that disagrees. Can you cite one LDS authority or theologian who says that spirits or spirit bodies are physical?

How about "matter" instead of the word "physical" which both mean pretty much the same thing?

To see the difference mak is talking about try imagining how you would describe light as being physical even though you're not able to touch it. Under a microscope you can see that light is composed of particles of matter, but those particles are so fine (tiny) that you're not able to touch them, or even see them with the naked eye without the aid of that microscope.

That's what spirit/ghost matter is like. You can see it with more refined eyes but still not touch it and if you were to try to shake the hand of a spirit/ghost you wouldn't be able to feel it even though he (or she) actually does have a hand.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Ahab

[maklelan]

Dan,

As I understand it, and as subsequent Mormon interpreters seem to understand it, Joseph Smith's description of spirit as "more pure, elastic and refined matter than the body" indicates that it is not the same kind of matter as what we denote as physical. But I don't want to debate this endlessly. If you want to use "earthly" or "terrestrial" or some other term in place of physical, that's all right by me. Joseph's own vocabulary almost always used the term body in reference to the earthly, physical body, but later Mormons eventually began routinely speaking of humans as having both a "spirit body" and a "physical body." Whatever they meant by this distinction, they clearly taught that humans have two distinct bodies, one of which is subject to what we understand to be physical laws and the other of which is not.

My entire point for this tangent is aimed at this statement of yours:

Your own characterization clearly won't fit the Mormon view, since Mormons don't think the "divine council" is a "physical event" but is rather an event involving spirit beings in the celestial kingdom. Spirit beings, according to LDS doctrine, are "material" but not "physical." This isn't a mere semantic point, because construing the vision as meaning that spirits are literally embodied entities does imply that they are physical beings.

I hope you see that my characterization does actually fit the "Mormon view." We've parsed it down as far as it will go, and I still hold that you've unfairly interpreted the relevant texts. I've asked for other Latter-day Saints to chime in and correct me if I'm wrong, but so far all that have commented agree with my reading and not with yours.

[Calm]

You can't use the word "physical" though, and it has to be generic enough for the Sunday morning General Conference audiences.

One should not insist that a non philosophical or a non scientific discussions use their terms in philosophical or scientifically precise ways.

If one is concerned about understanding ambiguous terms then it is best to see how they are defined in context, not insist on a definition imposed from non contextual sources...though those may be a starting point to provide a checklist of attributes.

In this case where "physical" and " spiritual" are both defined as "matter"' this describes something that can be acted upon by the forces and energies defined by science as mechanic, nuclear, gravitational, etc. In nonLDS usage this equates with the term "physical".

Since LDS use "physical" in this context in a different way than is commonly done to distinguish between gross and refined matter, why would one expect to find them using "physical" to define " spiritual" matter? The term "matter" is used instead and that is what must be looked for...and it is found time and time again, pretty much consistently used everywhere that I've seen.

Considering the flack we often get claiming we are trying to hide our differences by using terms differently and supposedly pretending we are not, I find this case of someone insisting that our leaders are actually using the terms the same way as nonLDS when all the LDS here are saying 'not so' rather amusing....assuming that this error is not going to be perpetuated elsewhere.

[Calm]

Opposite ends of the spectrum?

That would make spirit Anti-matter!?

Nope, rather it deals with the 'amount' not the presence or lack of a quality.

Think of it along the terms od a bowling ball and a marble, a marble is not the opposite of a bowling ball though some of its qualities may be seen as relative opposites (large vs small).

[Zakuska]

Nope, rather it deals with the 'amount' not the presence or lack of a quality.

Think of it along the terms od a bowling ball and a marble, a marble is not the opposite of a bowling ball though some of its qualities may be seen as relative opposites (large vs small).

Well I was thinking of the whole antimatter thing as something like a sign wave in electronics. Or even thermaldynamics.

When you have a surge of energy in one place, you have to have an equal evacuation of energy from another.

The whole parallel and opposite universe of Deep Space 9 fame.

[wenglund]

It certainly is about semantics.

I have been using "physical" as a synonym of "element" as a distinction from "spirit" as used in this verse.

D&C 93:33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

Others have been using "physical" as a synonym of "material" as a distinction from "immaterial".

Of course, Bowman likes to use variations in semantics as a cudgel.

Some of us also use the word "physical" to mean matter that is less pure than spirit matter--at least that is how I have been using it. Unlike Rob, I don't have a narrow or rigid lexicon, and I have the capacity to grasp when people are legitimately using a word differently than me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

[O]ne of which is subject to what we understand to be physical laws and the other of which is not.

Not quite, spiritual matter being more refined, we are currently unable to measure such effects, but this does not mean the spirit is not susceptible to mechanic, material laws.

This is one reason why LDS are comfortable looking for natural solutions when it speaks of God's intervention since we don't perceive the Holy Ghost, the Light of Christ and other avenues through which God engages our world as something 'outside' that world materially, mechanically speaking.

[Calm]

Well I was thinking of the whole antimatter thing as something like a sign wave in electronics. Or even thermaldynamics.

When you have a surge of energy in one place, you have to have an equal evacuation of energy from another.

The whole parallel and opposite universe of Deep Space 9 fame.

If this was so, the the spirit could not coexist with the body.

It is not about an opposite state, but less of a certain quality.

Think of it as light and dark, they don't cancel each other out leaving the nonexistence of either.

Edited September 19, 2011 by calmoriah

[Vance]

Some of us also use the word "physical" to mean matter that is less pure than spirit matter--at least that is how I have been using it. Unlike Rob, I don't have a narrow or rigid lexicon, and I have the capacity to grasp when people are legitimately using a word differently than me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is basically the same way I was using it. But hey, those that nit-pick need to find nits to pick.

[Ahab]

If this was so, the the spirit could not coexist with the body.

It is not about an opposite state, but less of a certain quality.

Think of it as light and dark, they don't cancel each other out leaving the nonexistence of either.

Not necessarily less of a certain quality. Mainly just different qualities, I think.

Think of spirit matter as what your spirit/ghost is composed of and then think of your spirit/ghost leaving your body.

Would you say that some of "you" is missing, or would you rather say that some different "qualities" of you have been separated and are now existing in different states of reality... your "mortal" body then being dead while your spirit then continues to live on?

[Rob Bowman]

Here's another statement; this one is from "The Family: A Proclamation to the World":

“In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life.”

As best I can tell, this is how Mormon authorities have consistently used the term physical. The only reason I can think of for suggesting that they didn't mean it is that this has been pointed out by a rascally anti-Mormon.