Biological and Celestial Connection

[Damien the Leper]

I'm wondering if the church is, in its own way, an extension of the progressed nature of God. We hear "true and living" all the time. Is the church a living and breathing entity that cannot be considered mutually exclusive from the being of God?

Am I over thinking this?

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I'm wondering if the church is, in its own way, an extension of the progressed nature of God. We hear "true and living" all the time. Is the church a living and breathing entity that cannot be considered mutually exclusive from the being of God?

Am I over thinking this?

I think the Church is spiritually true and living. Her Head, Jesus, is true and living both spiritually and physically. Inasmuch as the Church is her members, yes, the mortal are biological entities; the dead are not; the resurrected (as Jesus) I conceptualize more as inseparably connected spirit and element entities than biological entities. The Church is more than her members, however; she is also the legal entity, the common unifying belief and the community of these members.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

............................yes, the mortal are biological entities; the dead are not; the resurrected (as Jesus) I conceptualize more as inseparably connected spirit and element entities than biological entities. .............

It seems to me that, at the resurrection to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, we will become glorified beings, with both spiritual and biological powers inherent in our advanced humanity.  God's own Son, for example, is a result of both His Father's spiritual and biological powers.  Perhaps that is what you meant to say.

[JLHPROF]

16 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I'm wondering if the church is, in its own way, an extension of the progressed nature of God. We hear "true and living" all the time. Is the church a living and breathing entity that cannot be considered mutually exclusive from the being of God?

The true "Church" is specifically connected to God and Christ in a familial way.  Sealed to Christ, joint heirs, etc.

The mortal organization known as the Church is organized by God, directed by God, but due to agency (even institutionally) is only an extension of God inasmuch as our choices match his will.

[Bobbieaware]

16 hours ago, Valentinus said:

I'm wondering if the church is, in its own way, an extension of the progressed nature of God. We hear "true and living" all the time. Is the church a living and breathing entity that cannot be considered mutually exclusive from the being of God?

Am I over thinking this?

12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

14 For the body is not one member, but many.

15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body?

17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling?

18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.

19 And if they were all one member, where were the body?

20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.

21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.

22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary:

23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.

24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked:

25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.

26 And whether one member suffer, all the members sufferwith it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.

27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.

[CV75]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It seems to me that, at the resurrection to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, we will become glorified beings, with both spiritual and biological powers inherent in our advanced humanity.  God's own Son, for example, is a result of both His Father's spiritual and biological powers.  Perhaps that is what you meant to say.

I think of biology as a mortal quest for understanding the mortal principles and laws of life, yielding mortal life. I think it can be extended to describe those mortal processes themselves. So acknowledging that we will be as the Father in every respect, I do not refer to His or our exalted physical capacities as biological in nature, thought I understand why someone might.

But the reason for my thinking is that I also think there are other, higher non-biological principles that sustain exalted life: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ?cid=GCA14-L0814-1-noteChristofferson&lang=eng

“Christ’s Resurrection shows that His existence is independent and everlasting. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.” Jesus said:

“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”

“The Savior is not dependent on food or water or oxygen or any other substance or power or person for life. Both as Jehovah and Messiah, He is the great I Am, the self-existing God. He simply is and ever will be.”

That may come across as a bit mysterious, but Jesus was clearly a physical being in mortality and is now an exalted physical being, following the pattern of His Father. Yet He is not dependent on the elements in the same biological fashion we are, and His spirit and element continue inseparably connected independent of it.

I wasn’t thinking about His conception and birth when I wrote that first post so thank you for bringing it up. It seems to me that His body, and His spirit connecting with it, was dependent on whatever Mary provided Him through her biological system from conception through birth. So extending this idea to His conception, I’m thinking the Father employed the laws of His exalted life in a way that Mary could tolerate. The role of the Holy Ghost suggests to me some kind of condescension on His part (e.g. lesser kingdoms receive the administrations of the Holy Ghost; D&C 76:86) and a corresponding quickening on her part (D&C 67:11). Somehow her biology (which can produce only flesh and blood for a pre-existing spirit to connect with) and the Father’s immortal processes (which sustain and produce not only flesh and bone but spirit children) were correlated in a way that the Son could be brought into our world with both attributes (flesh, blood and spirit). Through His innate spirituality, Jesus leveraged these into receiving grace for grace and eventually a fullness of grace.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

........................................................

“The Savior is not dependent on food or water or oxygen or any other substance or power or person for life. Both as Jehovah and Messiah, He is the great I Am, the self-existing God. He simply is and ever will be.”

That may come across as a bit mysterious, but Jesus was clearly a physical being in mortality and is now an exalted physical being, following the pattern of His Father. Yet He is not dependent on the elements in the same biological fashion we are, and His spirit and element continue inseparably connected independent of it.

I wasn’t thinking about His conception and birth when I wrote that first post so thank you for bringing it up. It seems to me that His body, and His spirit connecting with it, was dependent on whatever Mary provided Him through her biological system from conception through birth. So extending this idea to His conception, I’m thinking the Father employed the laws of His exalted life in a way that Mary could tolerate. The role of the Holy Ghost suggests to me some kind of condescension on His part (e.g. lesser kingdoms receive the administrations of the Holy Ghost; D&C 76:86) and a corresponding quickening on her part (D&C 67:11). Somehow her biology (which can produce only flesh and blood for a pre-existing spirit to connect with) and the Father’s immortal processes (which sustain and produce not only flesh and bone but spirit children) were correlated in a way that the Son could be brought into our world with both attributes (flesh, blood and spirit). ................................

The 1909 First Presidency said that

Quote

all men existed in the spirit before any man existed in the flesh and that all who have inhabited the earth since Adam have taken bodies and become souls in like manner.

* * * * *

...the body of man enters upon its career as a tiny germ embryo, which becomes an infant, quickened at a certain stage by the spirit whose tabernacle it is, and the child, after being born, develops into a man. There is nothing in this, however, to indicate that the original man, the first of our race, began life as anything less than a man, or less than the human germ or embryo that becomes a man.  

* * * * * 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, basing its belief on divine revelation, ancient and modern, proclaims man to be the direct and lineal offspring of Deity. God Himself is an exalted man, perfected, enthroned, and supreme.   Joseph F. Smith, John R. Winder, Anthon H. Lund, Improvement Era, Nov 1909, 75–81.

Brigham Young said:  

Quote

 “Though we have it in history that our Father Adam was made of the dust of this earth and that he knew nothing about his God previous to being made here, yet it is not so; and when we learn the truth we shall see and understand that he helped to make this world and was the chief manager in that operation.
    “He was the person who brought the animals and the seeds from other planets to this world and brought a wife with him and stayed here. You may read and believe what you please as to what is found written in the Bible. Adam was made from the dust of an earth, but not from the dust of this earth. He was made as you and I are made, and no person was ever made upon any other principle.”      Journal of Discourses, 3:319.

This leaves no room for doubt that Jesus was begotten the same way any other human has been begotten.

 

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The 1909 First Presidency said that

Brigham Young said:  

This leaves no room for doubt that Jesus was begotten the same way any other human has been begotten.

If that were the case, we would all have an exalted father and a mortal mother bringing us into this fallen world. But we don't.

At the same time, i do not disagree one iota with the First Presidency statements.

With regards to the 1909 statement, "Man is spirit" (D&C 93:33) and I think our being the direct and lineal offspring of Deity refers to that birth. However, we (our spirit) and element are "separably connected"  by virtue of our descendancy from Adam through biological, mortal mothers and fathers, not Deity. These are two different kinds of birth, and I would not consider the former the result of a biological function any more than I would consider the First Presidency statement to explain biological science.

With regards to Brigham Young's statement (also not a biological treatise), we know that Adam was made a paradisaical being through at least partially terrestrial processes. The principle is indeed the same for us telestial folk: the elemental component came from a physical planet. 

Now if you want me to draw a picture, the best I could offer is a biological representation which would not do the processes from the other realms justice. There is more going on than meets the eye,  which I suppose can only be discerned by the quickened eye. I think immortal life (both our spirit birth and resurrection, being like terrestrial and paradisaical beings) entails far more than the principles of biology that rule this world.

Certainly the true and living Church did not come about in the same fashion!

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

If that were the case, we would all have an exalted father and a mortal mother bringing us into this fallen world. But we don't......................................

It may be that you misunderstand what is being suggested by Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith:  There is no need to require a celestial father and mortal mother in their statement.  What they are saying is much more simple -- that every human is reproduced the same way, via fertilization of a mortal ovum by a mortal spermatazoan.  The only exception is the birth of an Only Begotten Son, and in that case, the celestial Father retains the capacity to produce mortal sperm as part of his glorified human body.  This is the reason that Jesus is able to eat after being resurrected (Luke 24:42-43), and that YHWH and his two angels are able to eat a feast with Abraham at Mamre (Gen 18:1-5; cf. Rev 3:20).  Celestial beings clearly have bodies of flesh and bone (Luke 24:41).

Brigham's view can only be accommodated by the transmission from another planet of both Adam & Eve, where they were produced the same way all humans are reproduced.

Edited December 18, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[CV75]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It may be that you misunderstand what is being suggested by Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith:  There is no need to require a celestial father and mortal mother in their statement.  What they are saying is much more simple -- that every human is reproduced the same way, via fertilization of a mortal ovum by a mortal spermatazoan.  The only exception is the birth of an Only Begotten Son, and in that case, the celestial Father retains the capacity to produce mortal sperm as part of his glorified human body.  This is the reason that Jesus is able to eat after being resurrected (Luke 24:42-43), and that YHWH and his two angels are able to eat a feast with Abraham at Mamre (Gen 18:1-5; cf. Rev 3:20).  Celestial beings clearly have bodies of flesh and bone (Luke 24:41).

Brigham's view can only be accommodated by the transmission from another planet of both Adam & Eve, where they were produced the same way all humans are reproduced.

That is what I am saying: biology is for mortals. You seem to know more about the Father’s private life than I do, in an Adam-Goddish kind of way But if the Father’s sperm was mortal, Jesus would not have inherited from Him the powers of Godhood (immortality) as taught in our various manuals.

Biology is all we can wrap our minds around right now. I see this as not taking anything away from immortals having bodies of flesh and bone, eating food (depending on where they are) and producing offspring (both spirit offspring and the kind of offspring Jesus represents), but biology is not for the immortal. I am also saying that Adam and Eve were produced the same way as we were, in that the elements comprising their souls came from the planet they were born on.

The fertilization you mention can occur in vivo, in vitro, by surrogacy, donation and engineering. We are moving toward not even needing fertilization (as we know it) to reproduce animal and human life. But ultimately the elements that create a human soul come from the planet upon which they are made, and I think that is the most fundamental commonality between mortal, paradisaical, and eternal procreation. And yes, we are all the same in that regard (but that to me is not biology).

[Robert F. Smith]

55 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is what I am saying: biology is for mortals. You seem to know more about the Father’s private life than I do, in an Adam-Goddish kind of way But if the Father’s sperm was mortal, Jesus would not have inherited from Him the powers of Godhood (immortality) as taught in our various manuals.

Biology is all we can wrap our minds around right now. I see this as not taking anything away from immortals having bodies of flesh and bone, eating food (depending on where they are) and producing offspring (both spirit offspring and the kind of offspring Jesus represents), but biology is not for the immortal. I am also saying that Adam and Eve were produced the same way as we were, in that the elements comprising their souls came from the planet they were born on.

The fertilization you mention can occur in vivo, in vitro, by surrogacy, donation and engineering. We are moving toward not even needing fertilization (as we know it) to reproduce animal and human life. But ultimately the elements that create a human soul come from the planet upon which they are made, and I think that is the most fundamental commonality between mortal, paradisaical, and eternal procreation. And yes, we are all the same in that regard (but that to me is not biology).

You have missed the point entirely. You appear to believe that celestials cannot engage in biological actions, even though Scripture is clear that they can.  That has nothing to do with Adam-God, but with the birth of Adam & Eve from entirely mortal parents.   The notion that Jesus is the son of a celestial father and a mortal mothers also seems to have escaped you, with your mention of in vitro, surrogacy, etc., as though those were necessary in some way.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have missed the point entirely. You appear to believe that celestials cannot engage in biological actions, even though Scripture is clear that they can.  That has nothing to do with Adam-God, but with the birth of Adam & Eve from entirely mortal parents.   The notion that Jesus is the son of a celestial father and a mortal mothers also seems to have escaped you, with your mention of in vitro, surrogacy, etc., as though those were necessary in some way.

I think I understand the point you are making that celestial people have sex with each other and with mortals (for all I know, they do), and I think it serves as a good counter to the Immaculate Conception. I'm saying that biology isn't part of the immortal side of that equation. Perhaps a simpler way of looking at it is to consider whether immortality is a biological function. I say it is not.

I do not believe celestial people are dependent on biological activity for immortal life, either in its maintenance or in its perpetuation. I don't think the statements you provided speak to God as living by biological activity, or that our canon or teachings present marriage and the family as He instituted in this world to be merely biological functions. In Abraham 2:9-11, God even goes so far as equating seed (the vehicle of life) with Priesthood (the power of God).

An immortal producing mortal sperm seems contradictory to law and would result in a purely mortal son lacking the innate capacity to live forever. By Brigham Young's account, Adam and Eve  seemingly went through additional transformative processes to enter and leave the Garden of Eden, and only then they became mortal parents themselves. We simply come into mortality from the pre-mortal spirit world through their mortal offspring and are reliant upon numerous biological processes to live, reproduce and die (and more: Mosiah 4:19, 21?).

I mention in vivo, in vitro, surrogacy, donation, engineering, and emerging substitute methods of generating human life only with regards to mortal fertilization and what we mortals can do in this world, not to suggest possible ways in which Jesus might have been conceived. I mention them to show that we are dependent on biology as part of the mortal condition and the choices we make with the laws available to us in a mortal sphere, and that exalted beings are not so dependent.

All this is to address the OP, that I see more than biology at play in the Lord's relationship with His Church.

 

[Calm]

CV, define biology as you are using it because somehow I don't think you mean 'organic living organisms and their functions' because immortal bodies would qualify there.

[CV75]

57 minutes ago, Calm said:

CV, define biology as you are using it because somehow I don't think you mean 'organic living organisms and their functions' because immortal bodies would qualify there.

I define a biological entity as a mortal organic living organism and its functions. The organism dies when these functions cease. it does not resume living through biological processes, for they cannot reverse the permanent decay of death. Biology includes the physiology, behavior, and other qualities of the mortal organism. The term and definition itself are the product of human study and understanding of the natural, mortal world and so I think conceptually it is limited to mortality.

Immortal organisms do not die and their functions do not cease; something other than biology or biological is going on for them to live again and then continue living and procreating. According to Elder Christofferson's remarks, God does not require what mortals do to live. By equating seed and Priesthood, God seems to transcend mere biology as I've defined it. Otherwise Jesus the Son of God would have been merely mortal without the power to live again.  He and the Father live by something other than biology, and I don't think we can call it "celestial biology" because we don't know what it is (knowing what regular biology is).

I think as long as the life of the mortal flesh is in the blood and there is flesh and bone but no blood in immortality, there is a big difference between the two forms of life and I'm not sure how well they correspond. The best we can do is call the mortal processes "biology" and the immortal processes "the power of God," as He has.

Edited December 18, 2017 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

............................. I'm saying that biology isn't part of the immortal side of that equation. Perhaps a simpler way of looking at it is to consider whether immortality is a biological function. I say it is not.

I do not believe celestial people are dependent on biological activity for immortal life, either in its maintenance or in its perpetuation. ............................

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

CV, define biology as you are using it because somehow I don't think you mean 'organic living organisms and their functions' because immortal bodies would qualify there.

The word is "celestial," not immortal, because many immortals do not possess the full range of biological function which the highest celestials possess.  Also, I know of no reason why we would want to split those biological functions from celestial status, since they are inseparably combined in the glorified body -- an inherent part of the genus and species of "god."

[clarkgoble]

On 12/16/2017 at 2:32 PM, Valentinus said:

I'm wondering if the church is, in its own way, an extension of the progressed nature of God. We hear "true and living" all the time. Is the church a living and breathing entity that cannot be considered mutually exclusive from the being of God?

Am I over thinking this?

Yup. Living just means growing and progressing. So it's a metaphor to life. Often truth in Hebrew was seen in terms of showing itself to be what it claimed. Alma 32 partakes of that metaphor. Living also is tied to water which in a desert environment could be fresh flowing water or stagnant water. So that's also tied to it with water right from a spring the safest to drink. So both elements of metaphor are at play.

I wrote up last year a post on what it means for the Church to be True. I'm mainly just quoting some Hebrew scholars but that usage is very Hebrew.

But in terms of reifying church (treating church as something independent than the people in it and running it) I think that's misplaced.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The word is "celestial," not immortal, because many immortals do not possess the full range of biological function which the highest celestials possess.  Also, I know of no reason why we would want to split those biological functions from celestial status, since they are inseparably combined in the glorified body -- an inherent part of the genus and species of "god."

I don't see how biology can play a role in any immortal realm, but if we want to limit the discussion to celestial or exalted beings, I think the same applies. You are helping make my point, since biology recognizes no genus or species of god.

Celestial and exalted people can certainly do more and function more broadly than telestial people, but I don't see how this is determined by their biology. Does the Church really teach that biology defines and drives us? (No! That's been argued over and over in all the threads about sexual morality!) The principles of godliness have more to do with the exercise of agency, and the glory of the natural*, resurrected body is determined by the spirit (D&C 88:28-310) and not biological principle. If biology is dependent on our will, then it wouldn't cease with death; rather, we would will ourselves to to die, and we would not need a Savior whose Father in the flesh is an exalted being to save us from death.

We are assured that the natural body will be built, look and function much as it does now but that does not require an associated biology as I've defined it (a mortal organic living organism and its functions). We don't even know whether the element inseparably connected to resurrected beings is organic since the body is quickened, or lives, by spirit and not by blood. I don't think anyone believes the spirit is an organic compound, and a thorough circulation of inorganic compounds kills organic bodies!

“The resurrection will again unite the spirit with the body, and the body becomes a spiritual body, one of flesh and bones but quickened by the spirit instead of blood. Thus, our bodies after the resurrection, quickened by the spirit, shall become immortal and never die. This is the meaning of the statements of Paul that “there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” and “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” [see 1 Corinthians 15:44, 50]. The natural body is flesh and blood, but quickened by the spirit instead of blood, it can and will enter the kingdom.” https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-howard-w-hunter/chapter-6-the-atonement-and-resurrection-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng 

* "naturally" referring to that which was organized in the paradisaical state, after it was organized spiritually (Moses 3:5), and before it became mortal -- i other words, the perfect form.

[Calm]

So in your view, the most likely immortal body is essentially a movable statue or maybe a robot?

I think it is much more likely spirit is organic.  

flesh and bones are organic, so if it is still flesh and bones...cells Iow, then whatever spirit is will have to work on cells.

Water is inorganic and yet the body has plenty of it moving around.

There is organic stuff that is toxic and inorganic stuff that is necessary to the health of a body, like salt, calcium...etc.

Edited December 19, 2017 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

On 12/16/2017 at 1:32 PM, Valentinus said:

I'm wondering if the church is, in its own way, an extension of the progressed nature of God. We hear "true and living" all the time. Is the church a living and breathing entity that cannot be considered mutually exclusive from the being of God?

Am I over thinking this?

https://swedenborg.com/emanuel-swedenborg/explore/universal-human/

 

Quote

 

In his writings, Swedenborg often repeats the idea that heaven has a human form, a concept that he calls the Maximus Homo. This is a Latin term that can be translated “Universal Human,” or, in older translations, “Grand Man.” (It should be noted that in Latin the word homo is gender neutral, so when some translations identify this figure as masculine, they’re introducing a bias that didn’t exist in the original.) This concept includes the idea that God can be understood as infinitely human, possessing every human capacity we can imagine. In other words, Swedenborg invites us to think of the Infinite Divine in terms of the human form.

This is where the idea that “we are made in the image of God” comes from. This well-known biblical concept is, as we shall see, a fundamental way of understanding the universe.

Swedenborg also invites us to think of heaven in this way as well. He tells us that angels in heaven live in communities, and that those communities each perform a function that corresponds to an organ in the human body. Together, all of the angelic communities form a single unit that is the Universal Human.

 

What Does It Mean to Be Human?

To really understand this, it’s important to first understand that when Swedenborg says “human,” he’s not talking about our literal physical form:

No one should think that we are human because we have a human face, a human body, a brain, and all the other organs and limbs. We share things like these with brute animals, so they are the things that die and are put in the grave. No, what makes a person human is the ability to think and will as a human and therefore to receive attributes that are divine, or the Lord’s. This is what distinguishes us from animals tame and wild. In the other world, the way we received those attributes and made them our own during bodily life determines the kind of human being we become. (Secrets of Heaven #4219)

When Swedenborg talks about a human body, he’s talking about the functions that the body performs: taking things in, keeping what’s useful to sustain our lives, and eliminating the rest. In the same way, the Universal Human is not a literal giant human being made of angels walking around up in the sky, but rather myriad communities working together and performing functions like those that take place in a human body.

By this ‘human’ to whom useful functions relate, I mean not only an individual but also groups of people and smaller and larger communities such as republics and monarchies and empires and even that largest community that comprises the whole world, since all of these are human. So too in the heavens the whole angelic heaven is like a single individual in the Lord’s sight, and so is each individual community of heaven. This is why each individual angel is human. (Divine Love and Wisdom #328)

 

 

 

And that would include communities which are churches.

Edited December 19, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 12/16/2017 at 1:32 PM, Valentinus said:

I'm wondering if the church is, in its own way, an extension of the progressed nature of God. We hear "true and living" all the time. Is the church a living and breathing entity that cannot be considered mutually exclusive from the being of God?

Am I over thinking this?

Quote

 

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin SJ (French: [pjɛʁ tejaʁ də ʃaʁdɛ̃] ( listen (help·info)); 1 May 1881 – 10 April 1955) was a French idealist philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist and took part in the discovery of Peking Man. He conceived the vitalist idea of the Omega Point (a maximum level of complexity and consciousness towards which he believed the universe was evolving) and developed Vladimir Vernadsky's concept of noosphere.

Although many of Teilhard's writings were censored by the Catholic Church during his lifetime because of his views on original sin, Teilhard has been posthumously praised by Pope Benedict XVI and other eminent Catholic figures, and his theological teachings were cited by Pope Francis in the 2015 encyclical, Laudato si'. The response to his writings by evolutionary biologists has been, with some exceptions, decidedly negative.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin

Of course biologists have no understanding whatsoever of theology.  They think theology is about "facts" not as non-falsifiable modes of thinking by which we create meaning in our lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega_Point

Quote

 

The Omega Point is a spiritual belief and a scientific speculation that everything in the universe is fated to spiral towards a final point of "divine" unification.^[1] The term was coined by the French Jesuit Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955).^[2] Teilhard argued that the Omega Point resembles the Christian Logos, namely Christ, who draws all things into himself, who in the words of the Nicene Creed, is "God from God," "Light from Light," "True God from true God," and "through him all things were made." In the Book of Revelation, Christ describes himself thrice as "the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end." The idea of the Omega Point is developed in later writings, such as those of John David Garcia (1971), Paolo Soleri (1981), Frank Tipler (1994), and David Deutsch (1997).^[3][4][5] 

^.....

Tipler[edit]

Main article: Frank J. Tipler § The Omega Point cosmology

Frank Tipler generalizes^[6] Teilhard's term Omega Point to describe what he maintains is the ultimate fate of the universe required by the laws of physics: roughly, Tipler argues that quantum mechanics is inconsistent unless the future of every point in spacetime contains an intelligent observer to collapse the wavefunction, and that the only way for this to happen is if the Universe is closed (that is, it will collapse to a single point) and yet contains observers with a "God-like" ability to perform an unbounded series of observations in finite time. However, scientists such as Lawrence Krauss have stated that Tipler's reasoning is erroneous on multiple levels, possibly to the point of being nonsensical pseudoscience.^[7][8][9] Tipler (1994) has summarized his hypothesis as follows:

• The universe has finite spatial size and the topology of a three-sphere;
• There are no event horizons, implying the future c-boundary is a point, called the Omega Point;
• Sentient life must eventually engulf the entire universe and control it;
• The amount of information processed between now and the Omega Point is infinite;
• The amount of information stored in the universe asymptotically goes to infinity as the Omega Point is approached.^[10]

 

•  

Edited December 19, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 12/16/2017 at 5:41 PM, CV75 said:

I think the Church is spiritually true and living. Her Head, Jesus, is true and living both spiritually and physically. Inasmuch as the Church is her members, yes, the mortal are biological entities; the dead are not; the resurrected (as Jesus) I conceptualize more as inseparably connected spirit and element entities than biological entities. The Church is more than her members, however; she is also the legal entity, the common unifying belief and the community of these members.

Unfortunately it is hard to say this without separating "spirit AND element" into two terms due to our cursed Cartesian way of speaking in the Western tradition.   We just don't have a word for it.  I refuse to use "substance" 

Since we know that spirit and matter are not two combined forces but one "stuff" /plasma/ whatever, speaking in terms I like just a LITTLE better, I think of these entities more as intelligent "fields" operating and interacting with the environment.   That's us in metaphysical terms, to me anyway.

It still is metaphysical language- I just like it better because it takes out just a tad of Cartesian dualism and gives it more of a process feel.

Edited December 19, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't see how biology can play a role in any immortal realm, but if we want to limit the discussion to celestial or exalted beings, I think the same applies. You are helping make my point, since biology recognizes no genus or species of god.

Celestial and exalted people can certainly do more and function more broadly than telestial people, but I don't see how this is determined by their biology. Does the Church really teach that biology defines and drives us? (No! That's been argued over and over in all the threads about sexual morality!) The principles of godliness have more to do with the exercise of agency, and the glory of the natural*, resurrected body is determined by the spirit (D&C 88:28-310) and not biological principle. If biology is dependent on our will, then it wouldn't cease with death; rather, we would will ourselves to to die, and we would not need a Savior whose Father in the flesh is an exalted being to save us from death.

We are assured that the natural body will be built, look and function much as it does now but that does not require an associated biology as I've defined it (a mortal organic living organism and its functions). We don't even know whether the element inseparably connected to resurrected beings is organic since the body is quickened, or lives, by spirit and not by blood. I don't think anyone believes the spirit is an organic compound, and a thorough circulation of inorganic compounds kills organic bodies!

“The resurrection will again unite the spirit with the body, and the body becomes a spiritual body, one of flesh and bones but quickened by the spirit instead of blood. Thus, our bodies after the resurrection, quickened by the spirit, shall become immortal and never die. This is the meaning of the statements of Paul that “there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” and “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God” [see 1 Corinthians 15:44, 50]. The natural body is flesh and blood, but quickened by the spirit instead of blood, it can and will enter the kingdom.” https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-howard-w-hunter/chapter-6-the-atonement-and-resurrection-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng 

* "naturally" referring to that which was organized in the paradisaical state, after it was organized spiritually (Moses 3:5), and before it became mortal -- i other words, the perfect form.

There are a number of fallacies which I see here:  You do not see the intelligence, spirit, and body as inextricably connected.  You ignore the necessity of natural experience in human bodies as an essential step for gods in embryo,  You ignore the obvious natural functions of resurrected persons (biological eating and biological reproducing), thus rendering meaningless the human step in development. 

Why make the human body otiose?  If all you say is true, then there would be no purpose to maintaining the human appearance at all, either before or after death.  Yet everything was first made according to the natural template, including the mammalian one.  Why not jettison all that at the moment of glorification if it serves no purpose?

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

https://swedenborg.com/emanuel-swedenborg/explore/universal-human/

....................................

This reminds me of the Hermetic divine council (Twelve assembled by Jupiter), opposites (vices & virtues), expulsion from heaven of the Triumphant Beast (bestia trionfante), infinite worlds, stars and planets as governors (via effluvia and influences), tripartite order of nature & cosmos, i.e., Intellectus, Spiritus, and Materia = intellect, soul, and body, in addition to other triads (such as the three heavens -- repeated by Swedenborg); spirit as a fine substance, eternity as imperishable, “no death, but only change,” initiatory cult, apotheosis (“god-making”), Orphic nox = Qabbalistic ensoph, etc.:

Quote

Man having taken on a mortal body, in order to live with Nature, is alone of all terrestrial beings of a double nature, mortal through his body, immortal through the essential Man.  “Man is united to the gods by what he has of the divine, his intellect; all other creatures are bound to him by the celestial plan and he attaches them to himself by knots of love.  This union of gods with men is not for all men but only for those who have the faculty of intellection.  Thus alone among creatures, man is double, one part like God, the other formed of the elements.”  
 “The soul and all the beliefs attached to it, according to which the soul is immortal by nature or foresees that it can obtain immortality as I have taught you–this will be laughed at and thought nonsense.”
 “. . . living beings do not die, . . but being composite bodies they are dissolved: now this dissolution is not death but the dissolution of a mixture.  And if they are dissolved, it is not to be destroyed but to be renewed.”   F. Yates, Giordano Bruno, 24, 35-36 (quoting the Sermo Perfectus (Lógos Téleios) in Corpus Hermeticum II:304),  39 (quoting the Sermo Perfectus in Corpus Hermeticum II:326ff.), 242 (quoting Hermes Trismegistus to Tat on the Common Intellect in Corpus Hermeticum XII at volume I:180-181). Cf. Joseph Smith: “Intelligence, or the light of truth was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29).

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

.............................................

It still is metaphysical language- I just like it better because it takes out just a tad of Cartesian dualism and gives it more of a process feel.

Then there are the “three consecutive dreams . . . from on high,” which came to Descartes on the night of Nov 10, 1619, as a kind of “Hermetic trance, of that sleep of the senses in which truth is revealed” – Descartes’ three visits from the Angel of Truth that night -- J. Maritain, The Dream of Descartes (1944).

[CV75]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Unfortunately it is hard to say this without separating "spirit AND element" into two terms due to our cursed Cartesian way of speaking in the Western tradition.   We just don't have a word for it.  I refuse to use "substance" 

Since we know that spirit and matter are not two combined forces but one "stuff" /plasma/ whatever, speaking in terms I like just a LITTLE better, I think of these entities more as intelligent "fields" operating and interacting with the environment.   That's us in metaphysical terms, to me anyway.

It still is metaphysical language- I just like it better because it takes out just a tad of Cartesian dualism and gives it more of a process feel.

I think "spirit and element" in D&C 93 recognizes that spirit and element are both forms of matter; one has a will and acts ("man is spirit") and one doesn't ("elements are the tabernacle"). That is my frame of reference. It is interesting to me that in other latter-day writings we see terms like "spirit element"/matter and "physical element/matter" to convey the same thing as D&C 131:7-8 (I acknowledge some life-supporting processes that are finer than "biology"). And course a spiritual body is physical and so forth... (I Corinthians 15:44, Alma 11:45).

I think the one "stuff" idea is good because without a body we were or become different than we are or were as a soul, and without a spirit our bodies are not souls. I also think taking the metaphysical approach gets to my reticence to apply our biology to immortal beings.

"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; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter."

"It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

"Now, behold, I have spoken unto you concerning the death of the mortal body, and also concerning the resurrection of the mortal body. I say unto you that this mortal body is raised to an immortal body, that is from death, even from the first death unto life, that they can die no more; their spirits uniting with their bodies, never to be divided; thus the whole becoming spiritual and immortal, that they can no more see corruption."