Robert F. Smith Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 57 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: In Nauvoo there wasn't a clear distinction made between intelligence and spirit. In most cases they are synonymous. We can appeal to a kind of distinction but it tends to be much more subtle and inconclusive. I've debated this with people who push the "it's all spirit" in Nauvoo view like Jonathan Stapley but I have to admit it's hard to argue for then as a clearly articulated distinction. He's recently discussed this here: https://bycommonconsent.com/2009/04/15/tripartite-existentialism/ JFS and BRM more or less adopted Brigham Young's "intelligence is the building stuff" without buying into Pratt's intelligent atoms (more or less Leibniz' monads combined with Priestly's atoms). Both tended to push a "we don't know what intelligence is" but didn't really discuss often the use of intelligence as a synonym for spirit. An older discussion is here: http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/04/what-joseph-believed-about-spirit-bodies/908/ I tend to favor a tripartite model but I'd be the first to admit we don't really have much trustworthy to say much. The primary problem is the lack of good terminology for a new concept (new to 19th century America). They might have tried nous or entelechy in order to separate it from the idea of smartness or today's IQ. "Intelligence" simply has too broad a semantic range. Monads maybe, but certainly not our modern subatomic particles, since it is not a substance of any kind, nor anything like a particle of atomic energy. The ancient Egyptian K3 "hyperphysical vital force," or the like, might work for us. It has to be a fundamental principle or essence which is indestructible, and which separates gods and humans from everything else, enabling us to cogitate and develop (with help) into advanced beings. This is a notion which utterly separates us from most other theories of existence. We also tend to objectify our English translations for principles beyond human ken, as though that provides a basis for debate. It doesn't.
Stargazer Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 On 16/04/2018 at 8:44 AM, Marginal Gains said: I thought God was like a computer, in that Mormonism claims he is predictable in that if we do our part, he is bound to do his part. Sort of - if we tap the right keys, in the right order, the right thing happens on the screen. Or do you see God as unpredictable, random etc? Well, we do have this: I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise. (DC 82:10) In my own life and in my observation of other people, those who keep the commandments of God tend to have better life results. Those who do not tend to get worse results. You may say that many of those commandments are actually God-neutral. For example, the commandment Thou Shalt Not Steal, if disobeyed, can easily result in punishment if one is caught stealing, and in a nation of thieves nobody can truly trust anyone, and everyone suffers as a result. But the opposite occurs if obeyed. The same for many of the other commandments. Does this mean that even a country of atheists can prosper if they keep the commandments? Of course it does, because it is an iron-clad law of the universe that actions have consequences. Should not God recognize this? If he were teaching the opposite, he would clearly be wrong, and therefore could not be God. I see God as ultimate rationality, and ultimate purpose. He is not a physical phenomenon. He has a purpose, and he has revealed to us what his purpose is. For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1:39) But in our limited state of existence we can only understand God imperfectly. Great is his wisdom, marvelous are his ways, and the extent of his doings none can find out. (DC 76:2) God isn't random, but he acts according to his will, and his purpose. Which we understand imperfectly. My comments on God not being a computer refer to the scientific exploration of God. God is not a cosmic vending machine, where you put in your token and get the gumball. Because God has a will, a purpose, and intimate knowledge and power, and if your prayer goes against that purpose (Janis Joplin's song, "Oh Lord, won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz?" comes to mind) then it ain't gonna happen. I wanted my wife to be cured of cancer so she could live longer with me, but she was clearly wanted elsewhere at that time. Others have had miraculous interventions, but not me and not her. Why not? Because it wasn't his will, because he has a purpose and that purpose would not be fulfilled by her remaining. But am I merely attempting to explain random chance as God's will? You may think so, but I good reason to believe it is not the case. You know, all this is really quite pointless. If God personally visited me and demonstrated his power and knowledge convincingly, and I told you about it, would you believe? No, you wouldn't. You have to get your own visitation, in whatever form that takes. And it seems, that except for certain highly select individuals, we only get the "still, small voice." And if you aren't listening, you won't hear. Earlier, you asked me how one could distinguish between the holy spirit and confirmation bias. As I indicated, it's difficult but not impossible. You just have to listen, and be willing to hearken to what you hear. On at least two occasions I prayed over a matter that I fully expected to get an affirmative result on. I got decidedly negative results instead. In the first case I experienced the classic "stupor of thought" -- well, it might be classic, but I've only gotten it once. In the second, it was just a decided feeling of NO. The first case is rather personal, so I won't go into details, but in the second I had decided to take a course of study leading to a career as a paralegal. I prayed to the Lord to confirm my decision, and instead of confirmation I got the opposite. It's hard to describe, but it was very clear that the Lord was advising against it. I don't know why. Under confirmation bias, I assume that I would have gotten the result I wanted, instead of the opposite. Way back when I was much younger I served as the president over a small branch of the church. Immediately after being called I was presented with the case of the previous president's wife having committed adultery (which was the reason he was released). Me and my two counselors held a disciplinary council, and the result was formal probation. Not excommunication and not disfellowshipment. I don't know why. She wasn't particularly repentant, and justified her actions. Logic dictated that she should have been disfellowshipped at the very least. But all three of us felt strongly that that wasn't the way the Lord wanted us to go. When I told the Stake President about the decision he was incredulous, and told me he would be praying about it. I told him "Please do," and I presume he did, but he never got back with me about the results. I assume he got the same answer we got. Confirmation bias should have resulted in disfellowshipment. Or so it seems. To this day I find the decision peculiar, but cannot doubt that it was the Lord's decision -- I would have disfellowshipped her, if it had been up to me. I have been led by personal revelation throughout my membership in the Church. There have been inexplicable things happen that clearly required the intervention of a higher power, and I received many distinct and clear answers to prayer. The Lord has been leading me, and I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge him. He's there. He's there for me. And I don't doubt that he's there for everyone who truly seeks after him. And if I get what I get, how could the men and women who are called to more responsible positions than I not get more? I trust that is how it is. Not that they are perfect and cannot make mistakes, but that despite their human frailties, God is leading them as well as me. 3
Gray Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 22 hours ago, RevTestament said: It was roughly equivalent to our idea of life. The breath of life returned to God who gave it. Whether they knew about material spirits is not the issue. Daniel too could be said to represent early Judaism, and it speaks of the dead rising from the grave. Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. So, the early Jews definitely did conceive of some life force which came from God and returned to God until their bodies were wakened from the dust. BTW this does not support the idea of most Christians that God created our spirits. In the beginning our spirits were breathed into our bodies by God after He creates the body. God does not form our spirits. He forms our bodies. The creation is about forming - not creating from nothing. Man is formed from the dust. The earth was formed from "the waters." Yes, I think we're on the same page there. Resurrection develops first, the idea of the "human soul" as a conscious entity comes later.
Gray Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 20 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yeah exactly. That's why they had similar beliefs. Remember Dives and Lazarus? Bosom of Abraham was for the more righteous the others stayed in Sheol https://www.ancient.eu/article/701/ancient-mesopotamian-beliefs-in-the-afterlife/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosom_of_Abraham What- I have to google it for you? Yes, that's second temple stuff and beyond. The Greeks had invaded and conquered Israel about 100 years before the "bosom of Abraham" stuff comes into play. Which is I think why scholars tend to say the soul stuff is Hellenistic influence - Hebrews tended to resist the notion. or were at least apathetic. Sheol is interesting, though. That seems to predate the Hellenistic period? Not sure because a lot of the Pentateuch is redacted from sources of various ages. But I think it might predate it, but the concept doesn't seem clear. In the earlier Persion period (Ecclesiastes) it's made clear that there is no afterlife. Some people say Sheol is just the grave and Hebrews didn't concern themselves with the afterlife, and God didn't either, at least until later developments in theology. From what I've read the most explicitly Hellenistic stuff comes from the late Christian literature, like the Gospel of John. Sorry, I shouldn't even engage in these discussions because I don't even have time to properly participate and do further research. No rest for the wicked
mfbukowski Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: Yes, I think we're on the same page there. Resurrection develops first, the idea of the "human soul" as a conscious entity comes later. What gets resurrected then? Must there not be some kind of template or memory of the body, some kind of remnant of the "self which survives death? Most accounts I have seen have the soul going to the underworld and then emerging in the resurrection. That doesn't make sense, at least to me that the resurrection would be prior. What gets resurrected then? Edited April 17, 2018 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 36 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, that's second temple stuff and beyond. The Greeks had invaded and conquered Israel about 100 years before the "bosom of Abraham" stuff comes into play. Which is I think why scholars tend to say the soul stuff is Hellenistic influence - Hebrews tended to resist the notion. or were at least apathetic. Sheol is interesting, though. That seems to predate the Hellenistic period? Not sure because a lot of the Pentateuch is redacted from sources of various ages. But I think it might predate it, but the concept doesn't seem clear. In the earlier Persion period (Ecclesiastes) it's made clear that there is no afterlife. Some people say Sheol is just the grave and Hebrews didn't concern themselves with the afterlife, and God didn't either, at least until later developments in theology. From what I've read the most explicitly Hellenistic stuff comes from the late Christian literature, like the Gospel of John. Sorry, I shouldn't even engage in these discussions because I don't even have time to properly participate and do further research. No rest for the wicked Still... EGYPT?
RevTestament Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 48 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, I think we're on the same page there. Resurrection develops first, the idea of the "human soul" as a conscious entity comes later. Well, I am not an expert on Hebraic texts, and what they show. However, my guess is the Hebrews had no real conflict with the very ancient Egyptian belief in resurrection, which I am sure you will agree predates Judaism. I consider Judaism "proper" to have arisen after the Babylonian exile. I do not accept the conclusions of textual scholars that Daniel is a 2nd century BC production. I am not interested in debating all the reasons, and I am sure they will just result in more debate with you, but nevertheless the fact remains that the Jews understood an afterlife or what we call a resurrection well before Yeshua came. Whether you want to call that early Judaism or not is not up to me. There was only about a six hundred year period from the exile until Judaism was smashed. I would consider the first half or at least the first 200 years to be early Judaism. It's amazing how little we really know about the period, but all indications are that a fraction of the people returned to Jerusalem. This can be ascertained because history indicates that there were only about 4 courses of priests out of the original 24 who returned to Jerusalem. So the 4 groups eventually had to be redivided into 24 courses to serve the temple as David had set it up. It was then that Judaism in its known form took root. Most things before that are just big question marks. What I am saying is that the version of Judaism you are looking at to conclude that Jews had no early concept of spirit, is an historical shell of an equally long or longer period before Judaism arose. The Hebrews arose out of earlier cultures who clearly had beliefs in spirit, afterlife, and/or resurrection as others have pointed out to you. There is really no reason to believe that the Hebrews and Jews did not believe similarly. Whether they called it the breath of life or spirit is really not too important. The concept seems to be about the same as ours. If you agree with that, then yes, I do think we are on the same page, but I think even you have to agree that Genesis was extant in the earliest Judaism, and while it seems to convey the idea of spirit or life force as being separate from the body, it doesn't clearly teach resurrection, although with further revelations one can conclude that it is a concept inherent in the tree of life. It can also be concluded from the early prophets of Judaism such as Jeremiah, that there is a separate life force or spirit. God tells Jeremiah that "before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and ordained thee a prophet to the nations." So, if you are going to insist that the idea of resurrection develops first in Judaism, I am going to have insist that we really are not completely on the same page. If you were referring to the method of creation with your comment about being on the same page without reference to the idea of spirit, then sure... I am glad we are.
MormonMason Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 On 04/16/2018 at 10:27 AM, Gray said: Spirit meaning breath or animating force. Not meaning an intangible version of you as a person. The "breath" as in "breath of life" or as in "animating force" is a different term in Hebrew. Whatever it was, it was with God before being here. The "animating force" or "breath" definition seems more like ideas among JWs and SDAs. It's the difference between נְשָׁמָה and רוּחַ. Some might say it is a difference without distinction but there really is a difference in how they are used. Ecclesiastes 12:7 uses the latter of the two terms. "Breath" as in "Breath of life" or "animating force" is the former.
mfbukowski Posted April 17, 2018 Posted April 17, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, MormonMason said: The "breath" as in "breath of life" or as in "animating force" is a different term in Hebrew. Whatever it was, it was with God before being here. The "animating force" or "breath" definition seems more like ideas among JWs and SDAs. It's the difference between נְשָׁמָה and רוּחַ. Some might say it is a difference without distinction but there really is a difference in how they are used. Ecclesiastes 12:7 uses the latter of the two terms. "Breath" as in "Breath of life" or "animating force" is the former. Your point would be stronger if you described it more fully than "ideas among Jws" etc. I don't have any idea what they believe nor "SDA's" On the other hand, before stethoscopes and electroencephalographs I suppose breathing was how one could tell if someone was still alive. If life comes from God and life is breathing then the breath of life is from God. Simple syllogism if you accept the premises Edited April 17, 2018 by mfbukowski
clarkgoble Posted April 18, 2018 Posted April 18, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Gray said: Yes, I think we're on the same page there. Resurrection develops first, the idea of the "human soul" as a conscious entity comes later. Again I'm all with you if you mean in a formalized fashion. But in a folk sense, I think necromancy pretty well undermine that idea that resurrection comes first depending upon what you mean. (Of course I'd say that even if it's missing in the relevant texts as compiled post-exile it was an idea in pre-exilic Israel) Also given the ties between Egypt and Canaan and Israel I think one can't downplay influence among the elite even if not held among the masses and certain sub-sects. 11 hours ago, mfbukowski said: What gets resurrected then? Must there not be some kind of template or memory of the body, some kind of remnant of the "self which survives death? Most accounts I have seen have the soul going to the underworld and then emerging in the resurrection. That doesn't make sense, at least to me that the resurrection would be prior. What gets resurrected then? To be fair, most these stories are talking about Gods and not necessarily a common person. Now if you throw deification into the mix then things get complicated. But that is an objection we should take note of. So Baal may enter the underworld of Mot and eventually is resurrected. However there's not clear evidence that a good Canaanite thought they'd get the same treatment as Mot. But I agree it makes little sense to have a notion of underworld without something in the underworld. Further the Baal Cycle texts we have date to around 1400 - 1200 BC. So well before the main period of Jewish history we typically worry about. Edited April 18, 2018 by clarkgoble 1
Gray Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 On 4/17/2018 at 11:33 AM, mfbukowski said: Still... EGYPT? Who knows! I'll do some more digging on this when I have time. It's an interesting topic.
mfbukowski Posted April 25, 2018 Posted April 25, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: Who knows! I'll do some more digging on this when I have time. It's an interesting topic. There's a new related thread on Sheol that has already quoted some of Robert's stuff from this thread 1
nuclearfuels Posted May 4, 2018 Posted May 4, 2018 On 4/8/2018 at 2:36 AM, The Nehor said: I can't give my source but I can say that both of these major changes were being considered by the Apostles for a few years under President Monson. This was not rush job by President Nelson. I can also say that these changes are only the beginning. And for those who think this is a lesser law I can also say they are wrong. The good ship Zion sails on. Only the beginning, eh? Bring it on, I say. Restitution of all things, perhaps?
Recommended Posts