stemelbow Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 17 hours ago, pogi said: I am saying that our choices (not our emotions) can be a display of enmity towards God. "My will and not thine be done". If so, I don't think people can help themselves, thus making the notion of God's punishment silly. Quote I don't think you need to make an enemy of your own emotions. Emotions are not the problem. The question is, are you going to let your emotions bridle you, or are you going to bridle your emotions? Emotions are critical learning tools in eternal progression. We need them. We should embrace them and accept them and learn from them. They are not your enemy. But if you let them, they can lead to your downfall. They are like fire. They can be incredibly useful and helpful, or they can burn you. It is your choice. I'm not following you. You told me I was fighting the wrong enemy. When I asked you, you identified emotions as the enemy. Now it appears you are going back on that. Not sure I'm following you. Quote So how are you any different the scriptures in that regard? You are criticizing the scriptures for being divisive for simply distinguishing bad ideas/choices from good ideas. They are no more divisive then you - just in different ways. The example of the verse discussed in this thread shows divisiveness. You seem to be accusing me of divisiveness by pointing out divisiveness. What are we to do when we see divisiveness? Pretend its not there? If we excise the divisiveness of scripture, which granted many religions have done as per pressure from the secular world, then we're better off. I bring these things up because on my view it's just much better to get rid of these archaic ways of viewing things.
pogi Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: If so, I don't think people can help themselves, thus making the notion of God's punishment silly. I disagree. We have free-will. It is a thing. 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: I'm not following you. You told me I was fighting the wrong enemy. When I asked you, you identified emotions as the enemy. Now it appears you are going back on that. Not sure I'm following you. What I listed were all verbs too. 1 hour ago, stemelbow said: The example of the verse discussed in this thread shows divisiveness. The verse being discussed is about an individuals internal struggle between competing enticements and which to act upon. You are being divisive by insisting that your interpretation is the one true interpretation and all others are wrong, and you use your interpretation to bash religion as a whole. You are being divisive. Accept it. Then work on it if divisiveness bothers you so much. Edited October 16, 2020 by pogi 1
stemelbow Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 2 hours ago, pogi said: I disagree. We have free-will. It is a thing. Impossible. But people assume the impossible all the time...that's why we have religion and god in the first place. 2 hours ago, pogi said: What I listed were all verbs too. The verse being discussed is about an individuals internal struggle between competing enticements and which to act upon. So? It clearly suggests the natural man is an enemy to God, forwarding divisiveness. 2 hours ago, pogi said: You are being divisive by insisting that your interpretation is the one true interpretation and all others are wrong, and you use your interpretation to bash religion as a whole. I don't have a clue why you think I've done anything near that. I haven't insisted on anything other than religion is divisive. 2 hours ago, pogi said: You are being divisive. Accept it. Then work on it if divisiveness bothers you so much. Don't be so divisive by pointing out that I"m divisive for pointing out the divisiveness in religion. Or whatever.
pogi Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 16 minutes ago, stemelbow said: So? It clearly suggests the natural man is an enemy to God, forwarding divisiveness. The natural man is not a person/s. That is what you are not getting. 16 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I don't have a clue why you think I've done anything near that. I haven't insisted on anything other than religion is divisive. You honestly don't have a clue as to why I would say that you are insisting that your interpretation is the correct one and that I am simply misreading it? Do you honestly deny that you are using your interpretation as evidence that religion is divisive, and dismissing my interpretation which is not divisive at all. Quote BUt if you say scripture doesn't say what it does say, or doesn't mean what it does say then while you may think that's your interpretation, I can safely conclude that's not interpretation so much as misreading.
stemelbow Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 53 minutes ago, pogi said: The natural man is not a person/s. That is what you are not getting. What is he then? A devil? A god? 53 minutes ago, pogi said: You honestly don't have a clue as to why I would say that you are insisting that your interpretation is the correct one and that I am simply misreading it? Do you honestly deny that you are using your interpretation as evidence that religion is divisive, and dismissing my interpretation which is not divisive at all. I haven't seen your interpretation completely. I see you say a man is not a person. I'm not sure that's interpretation so much as misreading. But I'm open if you care to explain yourself.
pogi Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 18 minutes ago, stemelbow said: What is he then? A devil? A god? I haven't seen your interpretation completely. I see you say a man is not a person. I'm not sure that's interpretation so much as misreading. But I'm open if you care to explain yourself. Again, it is like the parable of the competing inner wolves. It is about competing internal voices, not about wolves. To take a literal interpretation then we must conclude that we are to "put off" our literal physical person and become a new physical person/body. Nope. It is still the same person. Same body. Just listening to a different internal voice. 1
CV75 Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 1 hour ago, pogi said: The natural man is not a person/s. That is what you are not getting. But it does say that: "... the anatural bman ...yields to the enticings of the fHoly Spirit, and gputteth off the hnatural man and becometh a isaint..." What is the natural man (and saint) here, if not a person? Who yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit if not a person? Who denies himself, if not a person?
pogi Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 9 minutes ago, CV75 said: But it does say that: "... the anatural bman ...yields to the enticings of the fHoly Spirit, and gputteth off the hnatural man and becometh a isaint..." What is the natural man (and saint) here, if not a person? Who yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit if not a person? Who denies himself, if not a person? Clearly a person cannot put off his own person to become a different person, in the holistic and literal sense of the word. I think it could have been worded better. "If there be faults, they are the faults of man."
CV75 Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 2 hours ago, pogi said: Clearly a person cannot put off his own person to become a different person, in the holistic and literal sense of the word. I think it could have been worded better. "If there be faults, they are the faults of man." But this is precisely what we do when the baptismal covenant is fulfilled: the old man dies and is buried, and the new man is reborn. Also whenever we repent or progress. Do a word search of putting of the old man and putting on the new man (New Testament). We sacrifice and consecrate our selves in Christ, most fundamentally our wills. As our spirit changes, our whole person, including the body, changes with it, especially in the resurrection. The scriptures are consistent in the use of the word "person". The holistic involves the whole person, or all aspects of the person or human soul, and the literal excludes anything metaphorical or allegorical.
Calm Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 1 minute ago, CV75 said: But this is precisely what we do when the baptismal covenant is fulfilled: the old man dies and is buried, and the new man is reborn. Also whenever we repent or progress. Do a word search of putting of the old man and putting on the new man (New Testament). We sacrifice and consecrate our selves in Christ, most fundamentally our wills. As our spirit changes, our whole person, including the body, changes with it, especially in the resurrection. The scriptures are consistent in the use of the word "person". The holistic involves the whole person, or all aspects of the person or human soul, and the literal excludes anything metaphorical or allegorical. This sounds almost like a debate over Transubstantiation. 1
pogi Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 (edited) 38 minutes ago, CV75 said: But this is precisely what we do when the baptismal covenant is fulfilled: the old man dies and is buried, and the new man is reborn. Clearly it is not literal. 38 minutes ago, CV75 said: Do a word search of putting of the old man and putting on the new man (New Testament). We sacrifice and consecrate our selves in Christ, most fundamentally our wills. Yes, we consecrate ourselves. It is still the same self. The same body. The same spirit. We don't literally get a new heart. Our old heart was not literally stone. In fact, the scriptural heart has little to nothing to do with our actual physical heart. What changes is that we give more place for the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit. 38 minutes ago, CV75 said: As our spirit changes, our whole person, including the body, changes with it, especially in the resurrection. I don't believe it. Our spirits don't change to a different spirit, a different spirit person, a different self. It is still me, and always will be. Our spirits are eternal. I agree that it is "fundamentally our wills" that change. I still have the same cells, composed of the same matter, I am still the same person - the same self. It is simply a metaphor. Edited October 16, 2020 by pogi 1
pogi Posted October 16, 2020 Posted October 16, 2020 30 minutes ago, Calm said: This sounds almost like a debate over Transubstantiation. Exactly. Some things are just metaphors, regardless of how consistent the scriptures are at suggesting the bread is his flesh.
CV75 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Calm said: This sounds almost like a debate over Transubstantiation. How so? I am not proposing that anything is changing from one substance into another, but that the individual is making and experiencing tangible and physical changes by living the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which is a very tangible and physical process, the soul or person being a physical entity. I know some might think personality and personhood are not tangible, but I see them as a very physical processes. "The [metaphor] ...yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the [metaphor] and becometh [an other metaphor]"? That doesn't make sense to me, as actual people are making actual changes to themselves, putting off the old and becoming new in partnership with Christ, who is also real. I would say this more like the debates of when human life begins, or what constitutes a person or personhood. 2 hours ago, pogi said: Exactly. Some things are just metaphors, regardless of how consistent the scriptures are at suggesting the bread is his flesh. But people -- the natural men or saints -- are not "just metaphors". The conditions and changes you experience in the flesh as a melded spirit and body are not metaphors. That said, I think that metaphors and symbols convey the same principles and meaning as actual and real things... but they cannot live them. If the natural man is a metaphor, who is doing the sinning (Mosiah 3:11, 13, 16), rebelling (verse 12) and acting with pride and enmity (verse 18), and how would you describe him differently from a natural man? Metaphorically, the caterpillar is the natural man and the butterfly is the saint. The caterpillar sees the butterfly and says "You'll never get ME up in one of things" until he yields to the enticings of Mother Nature (that's allegorical with obvious limitations). Edited October 17, 2020 by CV75
CV75 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, pogi said: Clearly it is not literal. Yes, we consecrate ourselves. It is still the same self. The same body. The same spirit. We don't literally get a new heart. Our old heart was not literally stone. In fact, the scriptural heart has little to nothing to do with our actual physical heart. What changes is that we give more place for the light of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I don't believe it. Our spirits don't change to a different spirit, a different spirit person, a different self. It is still me, and always will be. Our spirits are eternal. I agree that it is "fundamentally our wills" that change. I still have the same cells, composed of the same matter, I am still the same person - the same self. It is simply a metaphor. The verse under discussion is not about the "heart" -- a metaphor -- but the natural man. Your cells do change. An extreme example is the resurrection, where the cells are quickened by the degree of glory that corresponds to your spiritual nature (whether the natural man or the saint version). But as our "hearts" (metaphor) change, so do our thoughts, feelings and actions (all physical processes). And "heart" may not be so metaphorical after all, if it refers to our "intelligence," the literal core of our eternal makeup. Our spirits are eternal but not stagnant (see D&C 93: 28 -40; 84:46-47 also). Note that "man is spirit" (93:33), and according to these verses does change with receiving and losing light. Edited October 17, 2020 by CV75
stemelbow Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 7 hours ago, pogi said: Again, it is like the parable of the competing inner wolves. It is about competing internal voices, not about wolves. To take a literal interpretation then we must conclude that we are to "put off" our literal physical person and become a new physical person/body. Nope. It is still the same person. Same body. Just listening to a different internal voice. Is it wrong to assume the inner voice "natural man" is the default for each human? I assumed that was the case. I'm not sure your interpretation eliminates the divisiveness nor is it any different than what others have already said. Who is an enemy to god again? It is those who fail to yield to the enticing of the spirit, those who fail to put off the natural man, those who fail to become a saint through the atonement? Or are you saying no one is an enemy to god because the natural man is an inner voice?
let’s roll Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 On 10/14/2020 at 12:12 AM, Robert F. Smith said: Not clear just how easy or difficult it is to accept the Gospel in the Spirit World/Prison. After all 1/3 of the heavenly host rebelled at the Council in Heaven, and demons all have a testimony of God and tremble. Very true. A third rebelled to the degree that they forfeited/refused the opportunity of mortality. Another group were faithful to such a degree in our premortal life that they merited the Celestial Kingdom before their mortal experience. Btw, does anyone else think the reference to 1/3 of the host of heaven is meant to describe one of the three outcomes of our premortal experience: 1) merit Celestial Kingdom; 2) mortality as a test/proving ground; or 3) reject mortality, rather than quantifying how many spirits opted for option 3?
pogi Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, stemelbow said: Is it wrong to assume the inner voice "natural man" is the default for each human? I assumed that was the case. I'm not sure your interpretation eliminates the divisiveness nor is it any different than what others have already said. Who is an enemy to god again? It is those who fail to yield to the enticing of the spirit, those who fail to put off the natural man, those who fail to become a saint through the atonement? Or are you saying no one is an enemy to god because the natural man is an inner voice? I wouldn’t say it is the default. It is the natural state or result of failing to heed our inner light. That is not our default state. We all are attracted to the light. We are also all attracted to the other voice. You keep twisting the passage by asking “who” is the enemy to God. There is no who. Once again, the natural man is not a “who”, it is a “what”. Saying “pride is the enemy to God” is not equivalent to saying “the man who is prideful is the enemy to God”. “Sin is the enemy to God” Is not the same as “the sinner is the enemy to God”. The passage is equivalent to saying that God hates sin, Yet... But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 (NASB) God SO loved the world... Edited October 17, 2020 by pogi
pogi Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, CV75 said: The verse under discussion is not about the "heart" -- a metaphor -- but the natural man. Same message different metaphor. Did my body and spirit literally die at baptism? Again, it is clearly a metaphor. My cells do not die and are not replaced with different cells when I repent. 6 hours ago, CV75 said: Our spirits are eternal but not stagnant (see D&C 93: 28 -40; 84:46-47 also). Note that "man is spirit" (93:33), and according to these verses does change with receiving and losing light. Thank you for proving my point. Man is spirit. Spirit is eternal. The man/spirit are the person. Who said anything about being stagnant? The person is rather fluid. Still the same person. I am still the same “I” that sang “I” am a child of God when I was 4 and not yet baptized, If any change in our nature or spiritual/chemical makeup is a new/different person, then the term becomes meaningless and useless because our cellular chemistry is constantly in flux. Our spiritual nature can change in an instant and is in flux. You are a different you from when you started reading this. “You” become obscure, impermanent and unknowable. Impersonal. You change too quick to have a relationship with “you”......which is now history. It was good to know you.., the old you...a few you’s ago by now. The first person “I” is/am eternal. Edited October 17, 2020 by pogi
Robert F. Smith Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 4 hours ago, let’s roll said: Very true. A third rebelled to the degree that they forfeited/refused the opportunity of mortality. Another group were faithful to such a degree in our premortal life that they merited the Celestial Kingdom before their mortal experience. So this would naturally include all children (or embryos?) who never reached the age of accountability. This would presumably include Jesus, who only goes through the entire experience to be the Sacrificial Lamb of God. Any other persons of merit? 4 hours ago, let’s roll said: Btw, does anyone else think the reference to 1/3 of the host of heaven is meant to describe one of the three outcomes of our premortal experience: 1) merit Celestial Kingdom; 2) mortality as a test/proving ground; or 3) reject mortality, rather than quantifying how many spirits opted for option 3? So the notion of one-third may only be symbolic?
stemelbow Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 7 hours ago, pogi said: I wouldn’t say it is the default. It is the natural state or result of failing to heed our inner light. That is not our default state. We all are attracted to the light. We are also all attracted to the other voice. You keep twisting the passage by asking “who” is the enemy to God. There is no who. Once again, the natural man is not a “who”, it is a “what”. Saying “pride is the enemy to God” is not equivalent to saying “the man who is prideful is the enemy to God”. “Sin is the enemy to God” Is not the same as “the sinner is the enemy to God”. The passage is equivalent to saying that God hates sin, Yet... But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8 (NASB) God SO loved the world... I see. So it's not me who insists your interpretation cannot be but it is you who so insists and yet complains that's what I'm doing. I'm not twisting anything. I don't think your reading is reasonable, but again as with other times when you've accused I'm happy you have a different reading. So let me ask, is it possible for anyone to be an enemy to god? If so how? It seems to me this passage tells us. I don't see you really giving a full and direct interpretation. It appears you are taking one aspect of it and concluding the opposite of what the passage says...but I could be wrong because you keep breaking off your explanation and saying something that doesn't seem to fit.
pogi Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 35 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I see. So it's not me who insists your interpretation cannot be but it is you who so insists and yet complains that's what I'm doing. I'm not twisting anything. I don't think your reading is reasonable, but again as with other times when you've accused I'm happy you have a different reading. So let me ask, is it possible for anyone to be an enemy to god? If so how? It seems to me this passage tells us. I don't see you really giving a full and direct interpretation. It appears you are taking one aspect of it and concluding the opposite of what the passage says...but I could be wrong because you keep breaking off your explanation and saying something that doesn't seem to fit. Sorry, I meant that you are twisting my interpretation. I made it clear that the natural man was not a person. Nothing else is identified as an enemy in this passage. No who. As I stated previously, the only true enemies in God’s eyes are the sons of perdition. I think that we can act in enmity towards God, pitting our will against his, but his grace is extended still. I don’t think that seeing this as a metaphor is the same as concluding the opposite. I think my interpretation holds together well and is consistent with the gospel message and nature of God. 1
CV75 Posted October 17, 2020 Posted October 17, 2020 9 hours ago, pogi said: Same message different metaphor. Did my body and spirit literally die at baptism? Again, it is clearly a metaphor. My cells do not die and are not replaced with different cells when I repent. Thank you for proving my point. Man is spirit. Spirit is eternal. The man/spirit are the person. Who said anything about being stagnant? The person is rather fluid. Still the same person. I am still the same “I” that sang “I” am a child of God when I was 4 and not yet baptized, If any change in our nature or spiritual/chemical makeup is a new/different person, then the term becomes meaningless and useless because our cellular chemistry is constantly in flux. Our spiritual nature can change in an instant and is in flux. You are a different you from when you started reading this. “You” become obscure, impermanent and unknowable. Impersonal. You change too quick to have a relationship with “you”......which is now history. It was good to know you.., the old you...a few you’s ago by now. The first person “I” is/am eternal. You used the term “black and white” to describe something the plan of salvation is not (even though there is one plan!), and something that a literal “natural man” is (even though he can choose to transition to saint!). These things can be both dichotomous and spectral, depending on the viewer, context and application. Both considerations are useful. That is why I prefaced my remarks by saying “in the spirit of *fun with semantics*”. We are symbols of our faith. Jesus represents the light, the truth, the law, the way, etc. We are also the literal products of our faith as we apply it, just as Jesus is the literal embodiment of truth, etc. as He grew from grace to grace. I can see the “natural man” and “saint” in Mosiah 3:19 as both literal and metaphorical references. Inasmuch as your body and spirit comprised the natural man, yes, you died and also became a saint with baptism (in the anticipation, planning, execution and follow-through). For example, if you quit drinking in connection with that, the cells of your frontal lobe began to regenerate, dopamine levels began to normalize, serotonin increased, etc. and your brain literally changed. The effects of faith, hope, clean and righteous living and the Gift of the Holy Ghost in other ways are similarly as tangible. Since “man is spirit,” a “natural spirit” (which I see is one that is co-eternal with God but lacks divine grace) is also an enemy to God (until or unless…). We see this in the war in heaven. God’s grace enables the natural spirit to become something it is not when he makes the choice to submit his will to God’s. So, I think what you are calling the eternal person is the will, not the intelligence, spirit or soul which do change from estate to estate. The eternal person can direct the spirit to be natural or a saint. At the same time, we are natural in some ways and saints in others. And generally speaking, we are one or the other depending on what we are focusing on. At any rate my posts show how the verse would not make sense if attributes (pride, greed, hate, selfishness) and conditions (fallen, depraved, etc.) themselves have the will to yield or not. As real people we, and not our attributes are doing the yielding. I agree that sometimes it helps someone to say, “Oh that’s not the real me, these sins are not who I really am,” as a step (denial on the path to full acceptance) before actually taking responsibility for themselves. I think the difference between the use of "natural man" as metaphor and as actual is that the first is transactional (behavior-focused) and the second is conversional (becoming-focused).
let’s roll Posted October 18, 2020 Posted October 18, 2020 (edited) On 10/17/2020 at 2:36 AM, Robert F. Smith said: So this would naturally include all children (or embryos?) who never reached the age of accountability. This would presumably include Jesus, who only goes through the entire experience to be the Sacrificial Lamb of God. Any other persons of merit? It includes those whose cognitive abilities are insufficient to permit accountability, regardless of age. My belief is that just as Jesus offered the desire of their heart to those who overcame in mortality (e.g. the 12 Nephite disciples, John the Beloved), and some chose to be reunited with Jesus quickly, some (John, 3 Nephies), desired to tarry; Deity also offered that same choice to those for whom mortality was not required to be a proving ground...some chose to remain in mortality only briefly (die in infancy), others to tarry longer (live into adulthood with a child’s unaccountable mind). Through personal experience with a number of adults in the latter category, I have a testimony of the desire, purpose and wisdom of their choice. On 10/17/2020 at 2:36 AM, Robert F. Smith said: So the notion of one-third may only be symbolic In the sense that if there are three choices, those choosing each choice might be characterized as a third of the whole. That use of “a third “ wouldn’t necessarily mean 33% of the whole made each choice. My belief is that approximately 20% of those in the premortal life don’t need to be testing in mortality because of their premortal valiance, approximately 75% are tested in mortality, and approximately 5% chose not to come to earth Edited October 18, 2020 by let’s roll 3
carbon dioxide Posted October 18, 2020 Posted October 18, 2020 I love Mosiah 3:19 has it reveals a truth that import for our day. Many try to justify behavior in our world based on genetics or being born that way. God accepts us as we naturally are. This is not the case. Even if we are born a certain way does not mean we can just go with it. We are here to improve and be better. Overcome challenges placed before us. Put off our natural tendencies and submit and sacrifice ourselves to God. We we do this, we can stand tall before God at the last day knowing we have overcome the world and our natural selves. Those who give into their natural selves are not overcoming anything. God accepts animals as they naturally are. God expects more from his children. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted October 18, 2020 Posted October 18, 2020 4 hours ago, let’s roll said: ............................. and approximately 5% chose not to come to earth A very generous notion. 1
Recommended Posts