Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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?

Yes, it is possible that the elements that the spirit are made of are not the same elements that our 'gross' bodies are made of, even though both sets of elements are "material". Something along the lines of the differences between carbon and oxygen (as long as one doesn't look to closely). There could be a whole new set of particles associated with spirits that we are not currently able to observe or measure.

However, at this point the only difference that has been defined is the "more pure" that Joseph used, which is a description of quantity....sort of, so I use it for a shorthand way of describing it in this discussion. Normally I wouldn't be having this type of discussion since Zak is the only one I know of who has made the leap to "spirit"/"refined" as "anti-gross" and "gross" from the difference stated between the "gross" and "refined" matter of our bodies.

Link to comment

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. :aggressive:

Of course they 'mean it', just like when someone uses the term "gay" to mean "homosexual" and not "happy" these days 'means it', just as if someone continues to use "gay" for "happy" also 'means it' but they are not talking about the same thing.

No one is saying they don't 'mean it', they are saying they 'mean' something else as well (the first in the sense of sincerity, the second in definition). You are again conflating two separate definitions based on the fact they written with the same letters.

Again, if you cannot show that in any case (and the examples you have given most assuredly do not) they are using "physical" to mean (as in define) something different from "material" or "matter", then you have no case.

And if an LDS was claiming the same thing, I would be challenging them on it. It is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how LDS view the world. LDS view spirit and "physical" as matter, everyone else views "matter" as physical....we do too, but we use "physical bodies" and "spirit bodies" to describe particular form of physical/matter because it is the most convenient usage at this point. If people were confused generally speaking----you have been the only one I've ever seen who has argued this----we might be more particular and find a more precise term, but since we know exactly what we mean and most everyone else we've discussed this with as well (if necessary a little clarification with the "more pure" matter clears it up), I doubt it will happen anytime soon.

In English words can be used in multiple ways. As long as one defines one's terms, most people don't make a big deal about it unless it fits their agenda to do so (I am not saying this is so in your case...yours may be a case of just not 'getting' it, just the cause of most disputes is this).

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

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. :aggressive:

The quotes you have mined use the word "physical" as meaning matter that is less pure and refined than spirit matter. They are not using the word "physical" to mean "immaterial."

Dan has been using the word "physical" to mean "comprised of matter." The way Dan is using the term "physical" is consistent with the meaning of the statements you have quoted from LDS authorities. He is simply using a different connotation of the word "physical" than them and us.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

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. :aggressive:

Again, a distinction is being made between the spirit and the element, this time using the word "physical".

This doesn't change the point being made in post # 216, but rather confirms it.

Link to comment

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.

It's how they consistently use the term when generically contrasting the spirit body from the mortal body. That's a specific context, and as I have pointed out, it is the only really general way to speak of that dichotomy. You couldn't even come up with a better term that would be generic enough for a Sunday morning GC session. You cannot find any examples where they say the spirit is matter that is not physical. When the nature of spirit as substance is addressed, you don't find it contrasted with "physical." And again, when you speak about something being substance, matter, and elemental, you are unilaterally speaking of something that is physical. You continue to overlook this, including ignoring my question about what someone means when they use those terms outside of this specific question. Several Latter-day Saints have chimed in, and yet you continue to try to pull proof-texts out of context to show us that what we believe isn't actually what we believe.

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. :aggressive:

I've already pointed out multiple times the reason for the different usage.

Link to comment

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.

I addressed this on another thread where I don’t think you were posting:

(edited/paraphrased) “My current working belief is that words, numbers and ideas – anything that serves as a principle of meaning or power -- even faith, hope and charity, are fundamentally made or organized out of some kind of matter, even if existing only for the instant, which is why and how they can exert influence on or impact other matter. That these things impact matter indicates there is a common foundation inherent in all things whether we categorize them, from our limited perspective, as immaterial / spiritual or material/physical.

“These ideas come from a synthesis of D&C 88:7-13, 93 (keying in on verses 2, 9, 23-26, 29-33, 36-40) and 131:7. D&C 93:30 sums up the idea that truth (spirit, light, knowledge, intelligence) acts independently to define “existence” or that which we typically conceptualize and segregate into material and immaterial experience / reality / etc. So everything is fundamentally some kind of matter.”

The quantum interconnectedness studies show that there is much we can discover and harness through science with regards to what we now label “spiritual” (the science of later generations has always replicated or performed what were considered miracles of former generations). I see that point beyond which we cannot see or do anything without priesthood as the frontier of spiritual things, no matter how “physical” we discover them to be.

Link to comment

It's how they consistently use the term when generically contrasting the spirit body from the mortal body. That's a specific context, and as I have pointed out, it is the only really general way to speak of that dichotomy. You couldn't even come up with a better term that would be generic enough for a Sunday morning GC session.

The only other one that works so far that I can see is "gross matter" which has other meanings that would be even more confusing, especially to people under the age of 16.

I've already pointed out multiple times the reason for the different usage.

Not the only one. :mega_shok:

phys·i·cal

adjective

1.

of or pertaining to the body: physical exercise.

2.

of or pertaining to that which is material: the physical universe; the physical sciences.

http://dictionary.re...browse/physical

"Physical" has more than one meaning...I am shocked. ;)

Also:

mat·ter...

noun

1.

the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.

2.

physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.

3.

something that occupies space.

4.

a particular kind of substance: coloring matter.

I am not sure how anyone would assume that something material is not by definition physical (in the sense of being "matter", not "connected to the body").

If Mr. Bowman hadn't put so much work into finding those quotes, I would suspect that he is teasing us.

Edited by calmoriah
Link to comment

Yes, it is possible that the elements that the spirit are made of are not the same elements that our 'gross' bodies are made of, even though both sets of elements are "material". Something along the lines of the differences between carbon and oxygen (as long as one doesn't look to closely). There could be a whole new set of particles associated with spirits that we are not currently able to observe or measure.

However, at this point the only difference that has been defined is the "more pure" that Joseph used, which is a description of quantity....sort of, so I use it for a shorthand way of describing it in this discussion. Normally I wouldn't be having this type of discussion since Zak is the only one I know of who has made the leap to "spirit"/"refined" as "anti-gross" and "gross" from the difference stated between the "gross" and "refined" matter of our bodies.

Well... remember the "gross" atoms that make up our Body are made of smaller "refined" particles. Since spirit is said to be light. Perhaps electons/energy are spirit. Thats is "refined" matter.

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

Well... remember the "gross" atoms that make up our Body are made of smaller "refined" particles. Since spirit is said to be light. Perhaps electons/energy are spirit. Thats is "refined" matter.

I have actually considered that as a possibility, especially since I came across this:

When blood flows in the veins of the being the offspring will be what blood produces, which is tangible flesh and bone; but when that which flows in the veins is spirit matter, a substance which is more refined and pure and glorious than blood, the offspring of such beings will be spirit children.

IIRC, isn't there a comment somewhere that says light will flow through our veins? (I think this is speculation for the most part, logical inferences, but it is in a teaching manaul so if Mr. Bowman wants to claim that it is taught, I won't argue that point).

Link to comment

I have actually considered that as a possibility, especially since I came across this:

IIRC, isn't there a comment somewhere that says light will flow through our veins? (I think this is speculation for the most part, logical inferences, but it is in a teaching manaul so if Mr. Bowman wants to claim that it is taught, I won't argue that point).

Oh great... so our race is destined to turn into the transparent Lipton Ice Tea commercial lady?! No wonders God cannot be seen. Because we see right through him. 8P

Edited by Zakuska
Link to comment

Yes, it is possible that the elements that the spirit are made of are not the same elements that our 'gross' bodies are made of, even though both sets of elements are "material". Something along the lines of the differences between carbon and oxygen (as long as one doesn't look to closely). There could be a whole new set of particles associated with spirits that we are not currently able to observe or measure.

However, at this point the only difference that has been defined is the "more pure" that Joseph used, which is a description of quantity....sort of, so I use it for a shorthand way of describing it in this discussion. Normally I wouldn't be having this type of discussion since Zak is the only one I know of who has made the leap to "spirit"/"refined" as "anti-gross" and "gross" from the difference stated between the "gross" and "refined" matter of our bodies.

I don't see why you're understanding the term "refined" or "more fine" to refer to something like quantity, even sort of.

Think of the difference between light particles and a big object that emits light, for example.

Do you think the object that emits light has "more" particles in it than the number of light particles being emitted from that source, or vice versa?

I think the object of light has just as much light as the light that is being emitted, even though we're talking about 2 different things with substance, just as I think our "physical" bodies have just as much substance in them as our spirit bodies even though they're both composed of 2 different kinds or types of substances... and all of them being what we are made of.

Link to comment

Wade,

You wrote:

The quotes you have mined use the word "physical" as meaning matter that is less pure and refined than spirit matter. They are not using the word "physical" to mean "immaterial."

Of course they don't. I never said they did. You are just not paying attention to what I have been saying.

"Mined" implies that I have selected out quotes that fit my argument and ignored those that don't. If you think this is the case, then CFR that LDS leaders have ever used the word "physical" in reference to spirit or spirit beings.

You wrote:

Dan has been using the word "physical" to mean "comprised of matter." The way Dan is using the term "physical" is consistent with the meaning of the statements you have quoted from LDS authorities. He is simply using a different connotation of the word "physical" than them and us.

Fine. But then we must distinguish, using his terminology, between two kinds of "physical" bodies: spirit physical bodies, and flesh-and-bones physical bodies. I think such a way of making the distinction will strike most people as linguistically odd, to say the least. It is also confusing, since this is never how LDS leaders have spoken about the distinction.

Link to comment

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.

You are exactly right, and I am acutely aware of this problem. The biggest problem I have posting on this board is using philosophical terms, or using terms in their philosophical context which are often used in common speach- words like "substance" for example.

Any one who takes on the burdens of using such terms in a different context has the additional burden of explaining themselves or risk being unintelligible.

Link to comment

Wade,

Of course they don't. I never said they did. You are just not paying attention to what I have been saying.

I didn't say that you said they did. Please pay better attention to what I have said, and not what I haven't.

"Mined" implies that I have selected out quotes that fit my argument and ignored those that don't. If you think this is the case, then CFR that LDS leaders have ever used the word "physical" in reference to spirit or spirit beings.

I don't think that is the case. I didn't use the word "mined" to mean what you suggest. I meant in the sense that you dug through all that has been said by Church leaders to find your quotes. There is no call for you to react overly defensively.

Fine. But then we must distinguish, using his terminology, between two kinds of "physical" bodies: spirit physical bodies, and flesh-and-bones physical bodies.

That is what you may need to grasp what he and we all are saying. I don't.

I think such a way of making the distinction will strike most people as linguistically odd, to say the least. It is also confusing, since this is never how LDS leaders have spoken about the distinction.

I don't view as odd that specific way of drawing the distinction, just unnecessary except in your confused case. You seem to be the only one on this thread who is confused. Why do you suppose that is?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment

Fine. But then we must distinguish, using his terminology, between two kinds of "physical" bodies: spirit physical bodies, and flesh-and-bones physical bodies. I think such a way of making the distinction will strike most people as linguistically odd, to say the least. It is also confusing, since this is never how LDS leaders have spoken about the distinction.

As usual, this whole thing is a total smoke screen. It is clear that LDS doctrine speaks of spirit bodies and spirit matter and that spirit matter IS indeed matter but "more refined"

This whole squabble about the multiple uses of the word "physical" is irrelevant - totally irrelevant-- to the issue you are avoiding, and that is how any "thing" can be immaterial.

The concept is ludicrous. You have as usual repeatedly avoided my posts and have answered none of the central questions.

Go ahead and continue to avoid them if you like. It is totally obvious to everyone that is exactly what you are doing. You think no one will notice or something?

All I am asking for is an explanation of how one spirit can be distinguishable from another while not having properties like location, the properties of extension, or exist in space and time.

In short how can a spirit, or anything for that matter, be "immaterial" and yet be some kind of entity distinguishable from other similar entities without those properties.

That's all I'm asking.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

It seems that the question of the immortality of the soul and whether or not it is "immaterial" has been quite a controversy throughout the history of Christianity.

It is no wonder that Rob is not willing to get into a discussion of the Protestant beliefs in this area. They are widely divergent.

http://en.wikipedia....The_Reformation

Luther apparently believed that the soul "slept" until the resurrection- (one wonders why one would need a soul at all in such a case) whereas Calvin argued against this belief.

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

How can one argue about the ambiguous use of the word "physical" while our doctrine is completely clear (and Canonized in the D&C) when Protestant theology itself is totally fragmented on this issue?

And we still have the additional contradiction of the lack of any clear indication at all in the Bible about these matters- if it was in the Bible one could be sure that the various Protestant sects would agree since so many regard themselves as "sola scriptura".

Yet they do not.

Clearly their theology on the matter is inconclusive, making a unified "Protestant" answer to the OP impossible.

And since Rob will not tell us what the Evangelical position is, as distinguished from the larger Protestant position, we still are getting nowhere.

And Rob is criticizing US for using "physical" ambiguously?? When a unified Protestant theology doesn't even exist?

Link to comment

Why is this topic of value? Does the Bible clearly spell out a doctrine on the matter? Of course not! And yet Rob would like to argue about it? Evangelicals have very few clear doctrines, which is also similar to the LDS position (yet, LDS doctrine and theology does address a broader scope); The Church of Jesus Christ defines few absolute doctrines; they are the fundamentals of salvation. The reason we do this is because so few understand them and the rest are not necessary for salvation.

Me thinks this smells too strongly of Pharisees arguing over some point of insignificance. We are Christians if God, for Christ's sake, forgives our sins. If Rob can agree with that, then exactly what is the problem?

Rob, you do not believe in Exaltation or Theosis, then great. It does not affect you. You will run the good race and your rewards will be exactly what you think they will be. For those who believe in Exaltation, they may fight the good fight and their reward will be exactly what they think.

Link to comment

For those who have forgotten, this is the OP.

In an earlier thread, Wade suggested that there is evidence that spirits have bodies in 1 Kings 22:21, where a particular spirit is said to have “stood” (implying legs and feet) “before the LORD” (implying spatial locations for both the spirit and the LORD), and to have “said” something to the LORD (implying a mouth). in this post, I will offer a different point of view on the passage supporting the conclusion that the spirit was an incorporeal being.

.... Understood in this way, the passage seems to support the conclusion that the spirit is an incorporeal entity.

The entire point of the thread was to show that the Bible shows spirits to be "incorporeal".

All this time, all this effort, and Rob still has not even addressed how such an entity could exist, much less be found in the Bible.

We know that the truth of the church does not rest on rational argumentation, but on spiritual testimony, yet it is nice when reason has its triumphs. This is one of those times.

Link to comment

For those who have forgotten, this is the OP.

The entire point of the thread was to show that the Bible shows spirits to be "incorporeal".

All this time, all this effort, and Rob still has not even addressed how such an entity could exist, much less be found in the Bible.

We know that the truth of the church does not rest on rational argumentation, but on spiritual testimony, yet it is nice when reason has its triumphs. This is one of those times.

Are not Angels... spirits?

Hebrews 1:7

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Psalms 104:4

4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:?

There where 2 Angels and the LORD who appeared to Abraham in Bodily form (described as men in appearance) who ate the lunch Abraham and Sarah prepared for them. Appearntly spirits do have Bodies and can eat food.

Link to comment

Wade,

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of your meaning in your reference to the quotes that I had "mined." In the past other Mormons on this forum have dismissed any quotations I presented from LDS sources as "quote mining" with the clear meaning that I was selectively pulling statements out of context and ignoring contrary statements (which was not the case, by the way). I appreciate your clarifying that this was not your meaning.

If I am "confused," it is because several Mormons here see nothing strange about setting aside the consistent way in which their leaders have articulated the notion of two bodies, a spirit body and a physical body. But I don't think I'm confused as to what you and the others are trying to say.

Link to comment

I found this on William Craig's website. He also dodges the question, and turns it into an ethical one.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6879

And there is also a thread of a philosophical nature, which I will not link to, because it contains objectionable language, and also because I have not yet read all of it, about how "William Lane Craig Disproves God", based precisely on this question of immaterial objects.

Link to comment

This video makes the point perfectly. William Lane Craig is of course Rob's idol.

Note that none of this applies to the LDS conception of God, which places him as a material being with a glorified body of flesh and bones and who interacts with his children. We escape all the criticisms this video makes of the concept of an "immaterial being".

We don't believe in such things.

Craig walks right into the trap

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oPhiv4Q1TU&feature=player_embedded#!

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment

If I am "confused," it is because several Mormons here see nothing strange about setting aside the consistent way in which their leaders have articulated the notion of two bodies, a spirit body and a physical body. But I don't think I'm confused as to what you and the others are trying to say.

This may be a bit tangential, but this helps me reflect that expectations of a website or forum need to be congruent with the mission and participants of that website or forum.

I would think the expectations of consistency in accepting and explaining doctrine would be fairly low of a public discussion forum like this. To avoid confusion, sites like lds.org or real-life conversations with LDS leaders wold provide more solid, less-conflicting information.

Because of the great variability in the acceptance, understanding and application of inspired statements you may observe here, some discretion needs to be used to tell which posts correctly represent Mormonism, which ones express the working understanding of the faithful practitioner, which ones are false, which ones have not much bearing (one way or the other) on bringing people to Christ, etc.

Link to comment

Are not Angels... spirits?

Hebrews 1:7

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

Psalms 104:4

4 Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire:?

There where 2 Angels and the LORD who appeared to Abraham in Bodily form (described as men in appearance) who ate the lunch Abraham and Sarah prepared for them. Appearntly spirits do have Bodies and can eat food.

It's worth noting that in the Dead Sea Scrolls angels are repeatedly called "spirits," as well as "gods" and "holy ones."

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...