Those Poor Backwards Materialists

[Coreyb]

So, what is the big deal with worshipping an "anthropomorphic", "material" God? As I read of the early mormon theologians (Orson, Parley, John Taylor) battles with the "sectarian priests" over God's nature, I am at the same time reading and listening to the more "intellectual" Mormons of our day discuss this same issue (via Dialogue Journal, Mormon Matters podcast). What is curious is that in both discussions, "materialism" is looked down on by each of the more scholarly parties. The main line clergy of nineteenth century Britain denounce it as "absurd" and "unphilosophical", whereas the more "sophisticated" liberal Mormons of today downplay and distance themselves from it as sort of a folksy, "unnuanced" way of looking at God, without altogether denouncing it. I have noticed in both cases, reasons for the superiority of an immaterial, unknown God that is more of a "universal force" than a person, are rarely if ever given (yet the condescending remarks are given generously). I wonder why this is. Is it just the fact that the more educated about human character a person is, the more uncomfortable the idea of answering to an actual material being becomes? I am not well read in classic christian philosophy, which no doubt has hashed over all the reasons, so would someone who is please enlighten my ignorant mind. Thanks

[Duncan]

just to add because I can't sleep to save me life is how some Christians can say God is immaterial yet we will be resurrected- what are we to be resurrected into? some cosmic gas of some kind?  Christ after he was resurrected and Thomas felt the nails prints in his hands did Christ somehow lose that body? what would be the purpose of being resurrected then? it doesn't make any sense

[Rivers]

I think people have a hard time reconciling an embodied God that looks just like us and organic evolution.

[3DOP]

We believe in the resurrection of the dead,

 

just to add because I can't sleep to save me life is how some Christians can say God is immaterial yet we will be resurrected- what are we to be resurrected into? some cosmic gas of some kind?  Christ after he was resurrected and Thomas felt the nails prints in his hands did Christ somehow lose that body? what would be the purpose of being resurrected then? it doesn't make any sense

 

I am not following. What is the conflict, Duncan? The elect will be resurrected as was Christ. Why would any think that Christ "somehow lose that body"? Catholics distinctly teach that Christ will always retain His human nature.

[thesometimesaint]

See Neoplatonism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

[MiserereNobis]

Oh, dear, here we go...

[Duncan]

We believe in the resurrection of the dead,

 

 

I am not following. What is the conflict, Duncan? The elect will be resurrected as was Christ. Why would any think that Christ "somehow lose that body"? Catholics distinctly teach that Christ will always retain His human nature.

 

Just curious of the Catholic idea of the trinity which makes God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost of the same immaterial substance or essence? if I am in the wrong please let me know!

[3DOP]

Just curious of the Catholic idea of the trinity which makes God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost of the same immaterial substance or essence? if I am in the wrong please let me know!

 

Hi Duncan.

 

You are correct, but I think I need to put it another way since you guys don't allow for the concept "immaterial substance". Right? If I am in the wrong, please let ME know. But I'll proceed on that assumption.  

 

Just like you, we think Jesus is God with a body. Just like you, we think the Holy Ghost is God without a body. We disagree about the Father.

 

But we have to agree that the body isn't what makes God the Son or God the Father or God the Holy Ghost, God. Catholics don't define it except to note that it is spiritual (to us that means non-material). We frequently call it "the divine nature", as Scripture does. That is partly why we believe in deification. It is because we can be "partakers of the divine nature" according to 2 Peter.

 

You believe spirit is "fine matter" and we think it is "no matter". Either way, we both agree that the Persons of the Godhead possess something that is distinct from ordinary matter that makes them God.

 

We certainly have our differences. But our beliefs are also closer than people on both sides are willing to admit. I hold that our respective belief structures stand on presuppositions that are debatable and irresolvable Scripturally. In my opinion, both LDS and Catholic have taken their presuppositions to reasonable conclusions. If the Catholic Church taught materialism, I would believe that. I take the position I do because of authority, not because I have figured everything out and arrived at easily reached conclusions by myself. I tend to think almost all of us are that way. I like it that way personally. I would be afraid to think I could figure out the truth by myself. Anyway, I think it is best if we try to understand your "materialism" while you try to understand our "immaterialism" while realizing that each of our systems of belief make sense to the parties who believe.

 

It would be great if we could learn, without prejudice to our faith beliefs, how to make sense of the other guy.

 

Rory

Edited March 20, 2014 by 3DOP

[Ahab]

Hi Duncan.

You are correct, but I think I need to put it another way since you guys don't allow for the concept "immaterial substance". Right? If I am in the wrong, please let ME know. But I'll proceed on that assumption.

Just like you, we think Jesus is God with a body. Just like you, we think the Holy Ghost is God without a body. We disagree about the Father.

But we have to agree that the body isn't what makes God the Son or God the Father or God the Holy Ghost, God. Catholics don't define it except to note that it is spiritual (to us that means non-material). We frequently call it "the divine nature", as Scripture does. That is partly why we believe in deification. It is because we can be "partakers of the divine nature" according to 2 Peter.

You believe spirit is "fine matter" and we think it is "no matter". Either way, we both agree that the Persons of the Godhead possess something that is distinct from ordinary matter that makes them God.

We certainly have our differences. But our beliefs are also closer than people on both sides are willing to admit. I hold that our respective belief structures stand on presuppositions that are debatable and irresolvable Scripturally. In my opinion, both LDS and Catholic have taken their presuppositions to reasonable conclusions. If the Catholic Church taught materialism, I would believe that. I take the position I do because of authority, not because I have figured everything out and arrived at easily reached conclusions by myself. I tend to think almost all of us are that way. I like it that way personally. I would be afraid to think I could figure out the truth by myself. Anyway, I think it is best if we try to understand your "materialism" while you try to understand our "immaterialism" while realizing that each of our systems of belief make sense to the parties who believe.

It would be great if we could learn, without prejudice to our faith beliefs, how to make sense of the other guy.

Rory

Okay, so tell me or describe to me how a being of "no matter" can actually exist in reality. I think I understand what you mean by "no matter" but to my understanding that equates to a being that doesn't really exist, since that would mean there is no substance to him, or in him. And if you're just going to tell me you don't understand how that could be true, either, but you still believe it anyway because you believe the person who told you that was telling the truth, try to at least understand why I do not believe it.

I like the fact that what I believe makes sense.

[3DOP]

Okay, so tell me or describe to me how a being of "no matter" can actually exist in reality. I think I understand what you mean by "no matter" but to my understanding that equates to a being that doesn't really exist, since that would mean there is no substance to him, or in him. And if you're just going to tell me you don't understand how that could be true, either, but you still believe it anyway because you believe the person who told you that was telling the truth, try to at least understand why I do not believe it.

I like the fact that what I believe makes sense.

 

It sounds like you are also attached to the idea that what the other side believes doesn't make sense...to you. No worries. It works that way from the other side too. Most people are comforted by believing that only their way makes sense. Often, people are resistant to the removal of this comforting error.

 

We think love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday "exist in reality". Just so we know where our differences lie, do you hold that they do not "exist in reality"? Or do you hold that they are made out of matter?

[teddyaware]

So, what is the big deal with worshipping an "anthropomorphic", "material" God? As I read of the early mormon theologians (Orson, Parley, John Taylor) battles with the "sectarian priests" over God's nature, I am at the same time reading and listening to the more "intellectual" Mormons of our day discuss this same issue (via Dialogue Journal, Mormon Matters podcast). What is curious is that in both discussions, "materialism" is looked down on by each of the more scholarly parties. The main line clergy of nineteenth century Britain denounce it as "absurd" and "unphilosophical", whereas the more "sophisticated" liberal Mormons of today downplay and distance themselves from it as sort of a folksy, "unnuanced" way of looking at God, without altogether denouncing it. I have noticed in both cases, reasons for the superiority of an immaterial, unknown God that is more of a "universal force" than a person, are rarely if ever given (yet the condescending remarks are given generously). I wonder why this is. Is it just the fact that the more educated about human character a person is, the more uncomfortable the idea of answering to an actual material being becomes? I am not well read in classic christian philosophy, which no doubt has hashed over all the reasons, so would someone who is please enlighten my ignorant mind. Thanks

 

In His Mormon Doctrine of Deity, B H Roberts said that the person and nature of Jesus Christ is the big game changer when it comes to insisting on a belief in an immaterial God. If the material Christ is God in every sense of the word, and if He is not one whit behind the Father in all the infinite and eternal attributes of deity, then why insist that the Father must be immaterial in order to remain the fully transcendent God? Paul taught the Colossians:

6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him:

7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.

8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:

 

In a very real sense, I would say that if God the Father is the immaterial God of historical Christian tradition then Christ would actually be superior to the Father insofar as the nature of His being is concerned. Why? Because as Paul said there dwells in the resurrected Christ all the fullness of the Godhead (i.e. all the fullness of the Father's divine nature and attributes) in embodied form. Therefore Christ is everything the Father is but with the added endowment of a material body that enables Him to enjoy and relate to His creation in a much more personal and intimate way.

 

The divine personage of the material Christ can sit down and enjoy a delicious meal and engaging conversation with His friends in a way an immaterial being can not. Would this not be a great and desirable advantage to the embodied Christ over the immaterial and forever quiescent Father? 

 

The divine personage of the material Christ can embrace precious newborn infants in His arms and bounce sweet little children on His knee as they beam, laugh and engage in mutual expressions of human joy and affection in a way a "totally other" immaterial being can not. Would not this be a great and desirable advantage to the embodied Christ over the immaterial Father? 

 

The divine personage of the material Christ is able to tenderly hold a loved one in His holy embrace, smile sweetly into that loved one's face, and with mouth and lips say I love you in a moment of supreme emotional rapture not possible for an immaterial being who is without body, parts and passions. Would not this be a great and desirable advantage to the embodied Christ over the immaterial Father?

 

If Christ possesses all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, is He not everything the Father is but with the added advantage of a glorified human body that enables Him to experience an even greater fullness of joy, a joy He can fully and intimately share with the other material humans and creatures He has created?

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

34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy. (D&C 93)

Edited March 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

It sounds like you are also attached to the idea that what the other side believes doesn't make sense...to you. No worries. It works that way from the other side too. Most people are comforted by believing that only their way makes sense. Often, people are resistant to the removal of this comforting error.

I'm open to trying to understand your understanding of a "no matter" being if you can tell me or describe how that idea makes sense. I was just saying the idea doesn't make any sense to me, now, considering what I think you mean by a being if no matter. I think you believe it but without having an understanding that makrs sense, simply believing it because you believe it is true.

We think love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday "exist in reality". Just so we know where our differences lie, do you hold that they do not "exist in reality"? Or do you hold that they are made out of matter?

I'm talking about a being, a form or kind of living person/entity, which you believe is not composed of any kind or form of matter. I know beings composed of matter have feeling, but that's not the kind of being you are talking about. And we can only measure or observe time based on elements of matter we see, so without matter we wouldn't be able to see it. Time is based on things that we can see which were either before or after or during something else, and without that context there would not be any time to notice.

[3DOP]

I'm open to trying to understand your understanding of a "no matter" being if you can tell me or describe how that idea makes sense. I was just saying the idea doesn't make any sense to me, now, considering what I think you mean by a being if no matter. I think you believe it but without having an understanding that makrs sense, simply believing it because you believe it is true.

I'm talking about a being, a form or kind of living person/entity, which you believe is not composed of any kind or form of matter. I know beings composed of matter have feeling, but that's not the kind of being you are talking about. And we can only measure or observe time based on elements of matter we see, so without matter we wouldn't be able to see it. Time is based on things that we can see which were either before or after or during something else, and without that context there would not be any time to notice.

 

Ahab, hi again. I appreciate your willingness to try to understand a living being with no matter, but I think I need to insist on love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday before we could ever get there. Love, justice, mercy and Wednesday seem easier to me.

 

Before we can talk about living immaterial reality, it is important to establish non-living immaterial reality. Even in the world of physics, one begins with inanimate material being (minerals) before moving to that material being which is alive (vegetative life). Are you agreeing that love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday are immaterial, albeit non-living, realities? If you disagree, I would wonder if you reject them as realities because they are immaterial, or because you think they are made out of matter. Either way, we are probably at an impasse. The one who denies that love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday are real, or that they are made out of matter, will not be able to understand us. But from my position, it is easy to discern that love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday are real, and they are not made out of matter. It seems like philosophical dogmatism that would say otherwise..

[teddyaware]

Ahab, hi again. I appreciate your willingness to try to understand a living being with no matter, but I think I need to insist on love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday before we could ever get there. Love, justice, mercy and Wednesday seem easier to me.

 

Before we can talk about living immaterial reality, it is important to establish non-living immaterial reality. Even in the world of physics, one begins with inanimate material being (minerals) before moving to that material being which is alive (vegetative life). Are you agreeing that love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday are immaterial, albeit non-living, realities? If you disagree, I would wonder if you reject them as realities because they are immaterial, or because you think they are made out of matter. Either way, we are probably at an impasse. The one who denies that love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday are real, or that they are made out of matter, will not be able to understand us. But from my position, it is easy to discern that love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday are real, and they are not made out of matter. It seems like philosophical dogmatism that would say otherwise.

Love, justice and mercy can only exist within material minds made of either gross matter and/or spiritual matter. For instance, one may imagine love can exist outside of the mind, but in reality it does not. Love is only felt and experienced as a very real and dynamic phenomenon within the your mind, or somebody else's mind. When you love someone, there are actual regions within the brain that are encoded with information implanted in real matter that enable you to remember how you came to first love that person, why you love that person, why that person (hopefully) loves you, what's the best way to demonstrate your love to that person, etc.. Even the emotions that accompany love are very real material phenomena.

While one might imagine that love can somehow exist as an immaterial principle outside of the mind, in reality it either exists within the mind or it exists nowhere. In human terms, one will find himself hopelessly waiting forever for the imaginary principle of immaterial love to belie its own nothingness by taking some initiative to demonstrate itself to be an active and responsive influence in the lives of men. Wait as long as one might, unless love emerges from the mind of an organized intelligence nothing at all will ever happen. Love can only be experienced within the mind and can only be expressed by the mind through the actions and emotions of intelligent beings of real substance (i.e. beings that have self-awareness and a tangible existence)...

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. (D&C93)

Look to Jesus Christ as the primary exemplar of this principle of love, in actuality, only being able to exist within the minds of organized intelligences: Is the love that Christ feels for us a real phenomenon that exists within his resurrected brain and nervous system? or does the love He personally and individually feels for us exist somewhere outside of his own mind? The physical, emotional and spiritual agony Christ endured in Gethsemane was felt within His mind, body and spirit (finer, purer matter), which agony caused Him to sweat great gouts of real blood. And when Christ cried out to God in superhuman woe from the cross, all the unfathomable sorrow He endured for the three hours of darkness occurred within His own mind, body and spirit. The physical constitution of Christ as a glorified resurrected being clearly demonstrates God's love exists and is perfected within a material human mind that can only be activated by real material phenomena. The reason why some are tempted to believe spirit is immaterial is because while we are in our fallen state spirit is not plainly discernible.

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter. (D&C 131)"

Edited March 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[volgadon]

Hi Duncan.

 

You are correct, but I think I need to put it another way since you guys don't allow for the concept "immaterial substance". Right? If I am in the wrong, please let ME know. But I'll proceed on that assumption.  

 

Just like you, we think Jesus is God with a body. Just like you, we think the Holy Ghost is God without a body. We disagree about the Father.

 

But we have to agree that the body isn't what makes God the Son or God the Father or God the Holy Ghost, God. Catholics don't define it except to note that it is spiritual (to us that means non-material). We frequently call it "the divine nature", as Scripture does. That is partly why we believe in deification. It is because we can be "partakers of the divine nature" according to 2 Peter.

 

You believe spirit is "fine matter" and we think it is "no matter". Either way, we both agree that the Persons of the Godhead possess something that is distinct from ordinary matter that makes them God.

 

We certainly have our differences. But our beliefs are also closer than people on both sides are willing to admit. I hold that our respective belief structures stand on presuppositions that are debatable and irresolvable Scripturally. In my opinion, both LDS and Catholic have taken their presuppositions to reasonable conclusions. If the Catholic Church taught materialism, I would believe that. I take the position I do because of authority, not because I have figured everything out and arrived at easily reached conclusions by myself. I tend to think almost all of us are that way. I like it that way personally. I would be afraid to think I could figure out the truth by myself. Anyway, I think it is best if we try to understand your "materialism" while you try to understand our "immaterialism" while realizing that each of our systems of belief make sense to the parties who believe.

 

It would be great if we could learn, without prejudice to our faith beliefs, how to make sense of the other guy.

 

Rory

 

Bravo! I think that this is a very insightful response,

[krampus]

I think that the problem with worshipping the anthropomorphisezed god is 1. that is shows humankinds centrist feelings. and 2. That humans evolved to our current state, and will probably evolve into something completely different. Then why would god be human. Why would he look like something on planet earth as apposed to life on trillions of other planets. Mormons are not required to believe that god is anthropomorphosized and that we are no more than symbolically his children. It is not on the temple reccomend is it. to say thatvwe are required to believe that is overly dogmatic because it has nothing to do with ethics snd the things we need to know for exaltation.

[Storm Rider]

I find most of the disagreement to be terminology.  I know that must make some of our Catholic theologians shudder, but I agree with Rory on most things. For me it is easier to limit the dispute at, "it is the mystery of God" rather than attempting to define the many labels that are used in this type of conversation.  

 

In doctrine, LDS have a much closer affinity to the concept that we are God's children.  Our Catholic brothers and sisters tend to have a much greater affinity to the concept that we are the created creatures of God.  They tend to identify with a belief that God is wholly separate from his creatures and is all powerful.  We tend to believe that God is all powerful, but that power does not separate us from him.  Our purpose is to become like him and I believe we fail in our purpose when we don't pursue that objective or if we do not realize it.  

 

The Father send his son so that we might become like him; that is the infinite sacrifice so that we might become like him. We choose to accept and follow or not. When I think on this concept it clarifies what is true and what is not in society at large. Things may be difficult and we may not understand how or why things happen or exist, but I know we must follow him and become one with our Father. I think Catholics feel the same way and reach the same conclusions as we do.

[mfbukowski]

Oh, dear, here we go...

Not me.

Nobody listens anyway.

[volgadon]

Why would he look like something on planet earth as apposed to life on trillions of other planets.

 

 

Why wouldn't he?

[3DOP]

Fine matter vs. Gross matter vs. No matter. We agree about gross matter. When we partake of the divine nature, we are not accumulating gross matter. We are not gaining flesh and blood. Correct?

 

I am not suggesting that concepts exist outside of the mind. But I propose they are real productions of the mind, and they would need to be made of fine matter, gross matter, or no matter. I would be interested...

 

Gotta go...MM&DB vs. work. Maybe Saturday. Anyway, thanks for your consideration.

 

Rory

[teddyaware]

I think that the problem with worshipping the anthropomorphisezed god is 1. that is shows humankinds centrist feelings. and 2. That humans evolved to our current state, and will probably evolve into something completely different. Then why would god be human. Why would he look like something on planet earth as apposed to life on trillions of other planets. Mormons are not required to believe that god is anthropomorphosized and that we are no more than symbolically his children. It is not on the temple reccomend is it. to say thatvwe are required to believe that is overly dogmatic because it has nothing to do with ethics snd the things we need to know for exaltation.

I'm surprised to hear this kind of thinking coming from a Latter-day Saint. What you're saying here is out of step with well established LDS doctrine and I can't imagine how you can hold to such ideas when such an immense mountain of evidence is arrayed against you.

 

To begin with, the man Jesus Christ is God. So we know that the God Jesus Christ does in fact have the form of a man.

2 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (1 Timothy 2:5)

We are also told that He (Christ) is in the express (exact) image of the Father's person.

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his (the Father's) person (Hebrews 1)

 

To the Latter-day Saints, the above verse means Christ and God the Father look very much like each other. Clearing up any doubt on the matter, the Prophet Joseph Smith put it this way:

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, (D&C130)

 

The Pearl of Great Price puts to rest any remaining doubt on the subject when we learn that one of the name titles of God the Father is Man of Holiness and that the title Son of Man, as applied to Jesus Christ, literally means Son of the Man of Holiness:

 

57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time. (Moses 7)

 

Since the beginning of the Restoration, all the Latter-day Saint leaders have taught that "God is an exalted Man." Of interest to me would be to know if you have heretofore been unaware of the things I've set forth in this post, or if you've come to believe as you do in spite of the LDS prophets and scriptures. A third possibility is that I'm misunderstanding you and you could set me straight with further explanation.

Edited March 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

Ahab, hi again. I appreciate your willingness to try to understand a living being with no matter, but I think I need to insist on love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday before we could ever get there. Love, justice, mercy and Wednesday seem easier to me.

Before we can talk about living immaterial reality, it is importanthe to establish non-living immaterial reality. Even in the world of physics, one begins with inanimate material being (minerals) before moving to that material being which is alive (vegetative life). Are you agreeing that love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday are immaterial, albeit non-living, realities? If you disagree, I would wonder if you reject them as realities because they are immaterial, or because you think they are made out of matter. Either way, we are probably at an impasse. The one who denies that love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday are real, or that they are made out of matter, will not be able to understand us. But from my position, it is easy to discern that love, justice, mercy, and Wednesday are real, and they are not made out of matter. It seems like philosophical dogmatism that would say otherwise..

Teddyaware said many things I agree with and would also say to you but I'd like to give a more direct answer to your question. Yes I agree that there are many immaterial non-living realities, but I would not include things like love, justice, mercy, or time as examples of those kinds of things because those things, or what we refer to by those words, are things we can see as material, living realities. It is only when we don't see them that we think or begin to doubt that they exist, but in reality they do exist and as living, material objects. Like how Wednesday refers to everything that happened or is happening or will happen during those particular periods of time. And how love can be seen in all the particular moments of action when love was present. Even faith can be seen, by works, when soneone knows what to look for.

What you describe as a "no matter" being sounds more like what I would call an imaginary being, though, like when a child makes up an imaginary friend. Or maybe you just think God is like an imaginary person because you do not see him.

[teddyaware]

Teddyaware said many things I agree with and would also say to you but I'd like to give a more direct answer to your question. Yes I agree that there are many immaterial non-living realities, but I would not include things like love, justice, mercy, or time as examples of those kinds of things because those things, or what we refer to by those words, are things we can see as material, living realities. It is only when we don't see them that we think or begin to doubt that they exist, but in reality they do exist and as living, material objects. Like how Wednesday refers to everything that happened or is happening or will happen during those particular periods of time. And how love can be seen in all the particular moments of action when love was present. Even faith can be seen, by works, when soneone knows what to look for.

What you describe as a "no matter" being sounds more like what I would call an imaginary being, though, like when a child makes up an imaginary friend. Or maybe you just think God is like an imaginary person because you do not see him.

If traditional non-LDS Christians believe God the Father, though immaterial, really exists as an actual thinking and feeling person, who is just as real, in every sense of the word, as is His Son Jesus Christ, then our disagreements are mostly semantic in nature. Joseph Smith himself admits that spirit, at very least, gives the impression of being "immaterial" in nature because it's invisible and totally undetectable to the five senses and, I presume, to the most sensitive of scientific instruments.

So without the benefit of modern revelation it would be perfectly logical for non-LDS Christians to presume that spirit, though very real, is actually composed of something other than matter as we know it here on earth and in the universe. As a matter of fact, it might be rightly said that spirit is invisible matter; and given that spirit (for now) is something that is absolutely invisible and undetectable, it isn't that too far a leap for an uninformed person to change the term "invisible matter" into "immaterial reality."

But in the end we will see it is just as the Prophet Joseph Smith said: though spirit is too refined and pure for fallen mortals to see or detect, in the end we will come to realize that even invisible spirit is just as real as anything else that exists in God's universe. I sympathize with our non-LDS brethren because I can easily understand how one might get confused about the subtle but significant difference between undetectable matter (something that actually exists) and immaterial reality (something that actually doesn't exist).

Edited March 21, 2014 by teddyaware

[3DOP]

If traditional non-LDS Christians believe God the Father, though immaterial, really exists as an actual thinking and feeling person, who is just real, in every sense of the word, as is His Son Jesus Christ, then our disagreements are mostly semantic in nature. Joseph Smith himself admits that spirit, at very least, gives the impression of being "immaterial" in nature because it's invisible and totally undetectable to the five senses and, I presume, to the most sensitive of scientific instruments.

 

So without the benefit of modern revelation it would be perfectly logical for non-LDS Christians to presume that spirit, though very real, is composed of something other than matter as we know it here on earth and in the universe. As a matter of fact, it might be rightly said that spirit is invisible matter, and given that it spirit is invisible and undetectable, it isn't that too far a leap for someone to change the term "invisible matter" into "immaterial reality." But in the end we will see it is just as the Prophet Joseph Smith said, though spirit is too refined and pure for fallen mortals to see or detect, in the end we will come to realize that even invisible spirit is just as real as  anything else that exists in God's universe. I sympathize with our non-LDS brethren because I can easily understand how one might get confused about the subtle but significant difference between undetectable matter (something that actually exists) and immaterial reality (something that actually doesn't exist.      

 

Teddyaware.

 

Thank you. Well said. I still might develop the "nature of ideas" if there is any interest. But you have gone where I preferred to go with this as I was thinking today. I was never trying to prove you guys wrong. I only wanted to get to where we don't get to charge each other with being out of our minds.

Edited March 21, 2014 by 3DOP

[teddyaware]

Teddyaware.

 

Thank you. Well said. I still might develop the "nature of ideas" if there is any interest. But you have gone where I preferred to go with this as I was thinking today. I was never trying to prove you guys wrong. I only wanted to get to where we don't get to charge each other with being out of our minds.

You're very welcome. Over the years I've come to realize we Latter-day Saints and our non-LDS brethren are much closer on many points of doctrine than most would believe. Among some of the impediments to constructive dialogue are idiosyncratic word definitions and unfamiliar terminologies unique to a particular religion that so often confuse and becloud opportunities for constructive dialogue, mutual understanding and even (heaven forbid ) agreement. All the best...

Edited March 22, 2014 by teddyaware