• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does Paul Agree With LDS?

Orontes

Master of the Horse
There’s a LOT of this going around!

Your statement...”You go that route [of vitriol], because you can't defend your position, but don't want to admit the failure. You feel a need to reply with something, but have no other alternatives.”.... is right on!

As one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I’ve experienced it many times myself.

Thank you sir.

It seems many assume that assertion is its own justification. They are mistaken. Feelings are not facts, and wanting something to be the case, does not make it so. Critical thinking is not easy, and far too few are willing to put in the work, which is unfortunate.
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
@Orontes

I agree with @Hockeycowboy , I also liked your post and the deep insights it carried in it. (I actually like all your posts).

I thought it was a piercing and profound description of the mental dynamics of hostility and its attempt to justify itself despite a frustrating inability to do so with data. The lack of data explains the quick devolution to accusations and misrepresentations.

Clear
νετωακω
 
Last edited:

Orontes

Master of the Horse
@Orontes

I agree with @Hockeycowboy , I also liked your post and the deep insights it carried in it. (I actually like all your posts).

I thought it was a piercing and profound description of the mental dynamics of hostility and its attempt to justify itself despite a frustrating inability to do so with data. The lack of data explains the quick devolution to accusations and misrepresentations.

Clear
νετωακω

Thank you friend.

I always like your posts too. I'm always impressed with the speed you can put together posts with so many pseudepigraphic references. It takes me much longer to do the same: having to grab stuff from my library or papers.

I do think the dynamics of critique is both interesting, and sometimes disturbing, all the more so when one delves into the arena of the political or religious, because they tend to evoke such passion. I think this can be exacerbated with anonymity. People seem to be more venomous when concealed. It's the internet version of the Ring of Gyges. There is something about seeing another's face that can mitigate this.* I was listening to a couple flight attendants just a few days ago. They were saying how during corvid-19 and flying with masks, the incidences of people yelling or swearing at them have skyrocketed. It's sad.

Per religious critique/comparison: I am a fan of the late Krister Stendahl, of Harvard Divinity School, and his three rules of religious understanding:

1) When trying to understand another religion/faith etc., ask the adherents of that religion.**

2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

3) Leave room for holy envy.

Holy envy refers to those things within a given tradition that draws others to it, that resonates and moves the soul. In every major religious tradition I've studied, I find things that are profound and impactful. It is as if each faith, often through the lens of the language and culture it grew from, has caught sight of something that is an adumbration of the holy


*I am thinking of the work of Martin Buber and Emmanuel Levinas especially.

** this of course ties directly into the criticism I challenged that attempted to prioritize the expert or scholar as primary. Such fails on at least three levels:

a) inability to ground meaning

b) cannot be primary on logical priority grounds: the scholar vis-a-vis the object of study is necessarily in a secondary position to, and thus always already dependent on: the cannon, ritual or religious experience.

c) cannot be primary per the logical structure of inquiry itself: the academic rubric for religious studies is going to follow an inductive logic. As such, it can never be definitive as more data is always possible. The Nag Hammadi texts being one simple example
 
Last edited:

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Per religious critique/comparison: I am a fan of the late Krister Stendahl, of Harvard Divinity School, and his three rules of religious understanding:

1) When trying to understand another religion/faith etc., ask the adherents of that religion.**

2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

3) Leave room for holy envy.
I was first introduced to these three rules as Daniel Peterson presented them. If we could all live by them, our relationships with our fellow Christians (and even non-Christians) would be far better than it is.
 

Orontes

Master of the Horse
I was first introduced to these three rules as Daniel Peterson presented them. If we could all live by them, our relationships with our fellow Christians (and even non-Christians) would be far better than it is.

I studied under Peterson when I was an undergrad. He's an impressive mind.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
Absolutely. Paul certainly is not discussing whether we existed as spirits before we got bodies.
He expressly confirmed that there are only two kinds of bodies - spirit, and flesh, and shows that the one with a physical body exists in this state first - before they die, and are given a spirit body.

Back to the OP. I wasn't aware that Christians believe what I think you said above. I realize my belief that I lived as a spirit before coming to earth is probably unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But I did think that other Christians believe we have spirits or souls, if you prefer, now while in the flesh. Our physical body is inhabited by a soul. Are you saying you believe this is not the case and we will only become a spirit being or soul when we die and move on?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Back to the OP. I wasn't aware that Christians believe what I think you said above. I realize my belief that I lived as a spirit before coming to earth is probably unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But I did think that other Christians believe we have spirits or souls, if you prefer, now while in the flesh. Our physical body is inhabited by a soul. Are you saying you believe this is not the case and we will only become a spirit being or soul when we die and move on?
I'll be interested in hearing the answer to this question, Scott (good to see you again, by the way!), but as I understand it, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a physical resurrection, and cite 1 Corinthians 15:50, which says, "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" as proof. When questioned about the resurrected Christ stating that He had a body of flesh and bones and was, therefore, more than just a spirit, they have told me that He was just pretending to have a physical body in order to convince them of His resurrection.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
I'll be interested in hearing the answer to this question, Scott (good to see you again, by the way!), but as I understand it, Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe in a physical resurrection, and cite 1 Corinthians 15:50, which says, "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" as proof. When questioned about the resurrected Christ stating that He had a body of flesh and bones and was, therefore, more than just a spirit, they have told me that He was just pretending to have a physical body in order to convince them of His resurrection.

Hi! I show up here every now and then. :) 1. If nPeace is Jehovah's Witness I missed that. On Jehovah's Witnesses, I thought they believed we only exist physically. When we die, it's lights out for all of us. There is no soul, spirit, or essence that continues on. Then, those who are so fortunate, will rise again physically and live physically forever in a good place. Those who are not so fortunate, remain dead. Although I suppose since they have no awareness and no longer exist, that may not be so bad. - it beats the hell out of an everlasting burning hell - pun intended :)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Hi! I show up here every now and then. :) 1. If nPeace is Jehovah's Witness I missed that. On Jehovah's Witnesses, I thought they believed we only exist physically. When we die, it's lights out for all of us. There is no soul, spirit, or essence that continues on. Then, those who are so fortunate, will rise again physically and live physically forever in a good place. Those who are not so fortunate, remain dead. Although I suppose since they have no awareness and no longer exist, that may not be so bad. - it beats the hell out of an everlasting burning hell - pun intended :)
I'll let a JW clarify it for you. I think I understand their doctrine, but it always bugs me when outsiders attempt to explain Mormonism, so I'll let the JWs do their thing.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Hi! I show up here every now and then. :) 1. If nPeace is Jehovah's Witness I missed that. On Jehovah's Witnesses, I thought they believed we only exist physically. When we die, it's lights out for all of us. There is no soul, spirit, or essence that continues on. Then, those who are so fortunate, will rise again physically and live physically forever in a good place. Those who are not so fortunate, remain dead. Although I suppose since they have no awareness and no longer exist, that may not be so bad. - it beats the hell out of an everlasting burning hell - pun intended :)

For JW's, nothing survives the death of the body. We do not have a soul as a separate and distinct part of us that exists before birth or that goes on living after physical death. The "soul" is a living, breathing creature, with air in its lungs and blood in its veins. The "spirit" is what animates the soul, and sustains it by breathing. The spirit is not a conscious entity. The soul is entirely mortal. (Ezekiel 18:4)

Those chosen to rule with Christ in heaven are resurrected with a spirit body in order to dwell in that realm, in the presence of God. (Revelation 20:6)

So resurrection is what the Bible teaches....John 5:28-29 tells us that Jesus will call the dead from their graves...both the "righteous and the unrighteous".....and they will come out of them just as his friend Lazarus did. (John 11:11-14) Jesus not only spoke about resurrection, but he demonstrated it as well.
This earth was designed for life and we humans were supposed to be its caretakers forever.....that was God's first purpose, and it will still be carried out, once this object lesson is over. (Isaiah 55:11)

There is a death from which humans can be restored to life, and there is a death that is everlasting...the ones in "gehenna". God knows who is in gehenna and who is in hades. Most people have no idea what the difference is in those two terms. There is no "hell" because there is no conscious part of man that can be tormented in such a place.

Humans at the start were offered only life or death.....not heaven or hell.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Back to the OP. I wasn't aware that Christians believe what I think you said above. I realize my belief that I lived as a spirit before coming to earth is probably unique to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But I did think that other Christians believe we have spirits or souls, if you prefer, now while in the flesh. Our physical body is inhabited by a soul. Are you saying you believe this is not the case and we will only become a spirit being or soul when we die and move on?
Thank you.
Yes. The teaching that men were God-like before their existence on earth, is kind of unique to LDS... as a "Christian" religion, according to this article.
However. doctrines do catch on, and are adopted, by other groups, so I don't know what minor groups have this belief.

Like the doctrine of the immortal soul, there is usually a root, from which many branches of the root (different forms of the same belief) exists.

Some believe soul is a spirit body, while others believe it to be something else, but both believe it to be immortal, which is contrary to what the Bible says. The Bible never says the soul is immortal.

I am thanking you, because the structure of your question suggests that you asking for clarification to what you understand me to be saying, that Paul is saying.
I think if anyone thinks Paul is saying something different to what I presented, then they ought to show from the Bible that he is saying something other than that.
However, Paul explains very clearly, as I presented here.
Do you think Paul is not saying that there are two kinds of bodies - one heavenly, the other earthly, and God gives each life a body - one or the other, and death must precede a life to a new body, i.e. physical to spiritual, and the physical is first, then the spiritual?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Thank you.
Yes. The teaching that men were God-like before their existence on earth, is kind of unique to LDS... as a "Christian" religion, according to this article.
We don't believe men were "God-like" before their existence on earth, nPeace. I'm not sure how you came up with that. A belief in the pre-existence of man was very common at the time of Christ and persisted for quite some time after He died.

Do you think Paul is not saying that there are two kinds of bodies - one heavenly, the other earthly, and God gives each life a body - one or the other, and death must precede a life to a new body, i.e. physical to spiritual, and the physical is first, then the spiritual?
I think what the issue is here is a disagreement as to what is meant by a "spiritual body." We don't believe that the bodies we have after we are resurrected will be the same as they were in mortality. Although they will be corporeal in nature, they will not be sustained by blood as they are now, but solely by spirit. They will be perfect, immortal and everlasting, no longer subject to disease, injury or death. That is what we believe a spiritual body to be like.
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
For JW's, nothing survives the death of the body. We do not have a soul as a separate and distinct part of us that exists before birth or that goes on living after physical death. The "soul" is a living, breathing creature, with air in its lungs and blood in its veins. The "spirit" is what animates the soul, and sustains it by breathing. The spirit is not a conscious entity. The soul is entirely mortal. (Ezekiel 18:4)

I don't mean to overly simplify, but I think you corrected me by saying that you believe a resurrected person is a spiritual body, rather than a physical body, right? I was not aware of that. I assumed you believed the resurrection was physical like when Jesus was resurrected. Also, I think you confirmed that nobody suffers after death. If you are resurrected, you are in a good place. If you are not resurrected, you and not conscious of anything. Is that the main idea?
 

Scott C.

Just one guy
Thank you.
Yes. The teaching that men were God-like before their existence on earth, is kind of unique to LDS... as a "Christian" religion, according to this article.
However. doctrines do catch on, and are adopted, by other groups, so I don't know what minor groups have this belief.

I appreciate your well thought our response. But you missed part of my question. A Catholic friend of mine was once asking me what I believe. I explained that I believe we lived as spirits before we were born. He responded that he believes a spirit enters the body near birth, but he doesn't believe that spirit existed before that moment. In his scenario a mortal person lives with a spirit "in" (for lack of a better word) the physical body. My impression from one of your posts is that you don't believe that. In your view, we right now do not have a "spirit" component to our being. We are physical only. (Paul says the physical is first). The spirit, in your view, is created at death and is what moves on after death (Paul says the spirit is second). Is that correct or do I misunderstand? Do you believe in the resurrection, meaning that at some point in time, the spirit and the physical body will be united and we will live as physical resurrected beings? I know I'm not answering your question about what I think of your quote from Paul. First, I'm trying to understand how you understand it in relation to spirits and physical bodies.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I don't mean to overly simplify, but I think you corrected me by saying that you believe a resurrected person is a spiritual body, rather than a physical body, right? I was not aware of that. I assumed you believed the resurrection was physical like when Jesus was resurrected. Also, I think you confirmed that nobody suffers after death. If you are resurrected, you are in a good place. If you are not resurrected, you and not conscious of anything. Is that the main idea?

There are two resurrections spoken about in the Bible.....one is the "first resurrection" which is mentioned by both apostles, John and Paul and the other is mentioned by Jesus.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-17....Paul wrote....
"For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord." (ESV)

Those who have "fallen sleep" are "the dead in Christ"...those who have died in the flesh and who, when Jesus returned were to join him in a heavenly resurrection. These were not to precede those who were still alive when Christ came back.

"The dead in Christ rise first", as John also says in Revelation 20:6....
"Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years." (ESV)

These ones will rule with Christ in heaven, which requires a resurrection with the same kind of spiritual body that Jesus was raised in. The Kingdom will rule for 1,000 years over redeemed humans on earth.

Revelation 21:2-4 tells us this.....
"And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away. (ESV)

Christ and his "bride" will bring their rulership to "man" on earth and all the things that bring suffering to humankind will be removed, permanently....even death itself.

Among these will be the resurrected dead who have no prospect of going to heaven....no "heavenly calling". (Hebrews 3:1) These will be summoned from their graves to enjoy 1,000 years of peace and security in the flesh, whilst Jesus and his co-rulers bring redeemed mankind back into a reconciliation with God....a relationship they lost in Eden. This is why they are also priests. There are no sinners in heaven to need their services.

At John 5:28-29, Jesus says....
"Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment." (ESV)

You will notice that Jesus makes reference to their tombs....he calls them from their graves, just as Jesus called Lazarus from his tomb. Jesus said he was "sleeping". (John 11:11-14) This will be a mass awakening, probably over a long period of time to allow resurrected ones to gain their bearings and reunite with long dead family members, into a world that they may never have expected to live in.
Since Jesus says that "all" the dead will come out of their graves, it is only those who have the heavenly calling who will not live on earth.

Those who have already proven faithful to death will gain a free ticket to life....but those who never knew God and may have lived a wicked life in ignorance, will enter a period of "judgment" so that they can make a decision based on the education they will receive when they are restored to life. All have free will and must make their own decision to serve God. At the end of the 1,000 years there will be one final test, and all who pass will enter life everlasting on earth as God intended at the outset. All will go back to the conditions first enjoyed in Eden....a purpose that God never abandoned. (Isaiah 55:11)

I hope that answers your question.....
 

Clear

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Orontes and @Watchmen

Orontes asked : "What is the bias? The comment that was agreed with involves hostility and mental states. It's not a religious topic: "(The) description of the mental dynamics of hostility and its attempt to justify itself despite a frustrating inability to do so with data. The lack of data explains the quick devolution to accusations and misrepresentations."

My agreement with Orontes observation regards how individuals act when they cannot support a position and become frustrated, yet are desperate to justify that position. If they cannot do so with data or logic, the common result is frustration which, if it cannot be resolved, it most often turns to anger and this often manifests itself as personal attacks and venom and further compromise of the ability to think logically and objectively. It can be a snowball effect.

My "bias" is not religious regarding this point, but it is common, basic medical psychology.

For example, a few years ago, my medical group was contracted to give medical care at a prison for five years. So, in addition to treating medical conditions for prisoners, I also was the crisis director. Treating prisoners allowed one to observe of a lot of repeating patterns of thinking which often underlie prisoner interactions.

For example, the pattern of attempting to justify how a prisoner (and others) felt or what they did follows this same pattern Orontes discussed. It was the fact that Orontes nailed the description of how angry and frustrated individuals act inside the attempt to justify as a response to cognitive dissonance that was very impressive. It is amazing what we as people can justify if we want. It was very easy to justify rape and murder for some of these inmates. If you want examples, I will provide how one can justify these things inside the minds of people who want to justify them.

The pattern is not just among inmates of prisons, but it is common among all of us. When we feel guilty for something, it is often that one tries to figure out a way to justify having done something. For example, if a man has a wife and family who is wonderful, but he wants to leave them. Perhaps the stress is too much for him to handle with bills and responsibilities, etc. Maybe he finds a girlfriend, etc. If he leaves, he may feel terribly guilty for leaving. This guilt is a type of cognitive dissonance. The guilt is uncomfortable and so, the natural inclination is to either return to the wife and kids that he abandoned, or to attempt to justify having abandoned his responsibilities. In order to do so, he must generate reasons why his wife was not so good after all, he must tell himself that the kids will actually be fine without him; He was right to "set his wife free" so as to find someone better and a hundred other things, most of which are more false than true.

The problem is that, unless the reasons he leaves are indeed true, and unless the man feels perfectly confident and justified in having left his wife and in breaking his promises to his family, he cannot then let the issue go. He must constantly think of ways to justify what he did. He may even project onto his wife, bad characteristics that she never had. He may even provoke her in order to make her respond in anger so as to give him evidence that it was good for him to leave.

We see this in religionists and even in athiests all the time. If a religionist leaves their religion, they must then attempt to find justification for having broken promises to God. The guilt (cognitive dissonance) is so intense that they cannot let go of this attempt to justify what they have done. The religionist who is completely confident of his / her decision has no such guilt or cognitive dissonance. They simply leave and don't have another thought about what they did. They do not feel a need to continually criticise the religion they left or to justify a decision they harbor doubts about.

Similarly, "confident" athiests often don't give religion a second thought. They are confident in their belief and don't have any motive to even investigate or to debate religion. An athiest with cognitive dissonance may doubt his belief and want to continually debate and find criticisms with religion as a way to justify his / her own doubts about their own belief / or lack of belief.

Its can be complicated.

At any rate, the description Orontes gave of this sort of behavior was something you would hear in a medical lecture. It was spot-on and profound in it's implications. That's what I liked about it. It was wise and profound and applicable.

In any case, I hope your own spiritual journeys are wonderful.

Clear
ειτωσιτζω
 
Last edited:

Orontes

Master of the Horse
(M)y medical group was contracted to give medical care at a prison for five years. So, in addition to treating medical conditions for prisoners, I also was the crisis director. Treating prisoners allowed one to observe of a lot of repeating patterns of thinking which often underlie prisoner interactions.

For example, the pattern of attempting to justify how someone feels or what someone did in prisoners follows this same pattern Orontes discussed. It was the fact that Orontes nailed the description of how angry and frustrated individuals act inside the attempt to justify as a response to cognitive dissonance that was very impressive. It is amazing what we as people can justify if we want. It was very easy to justify rape and murder for some of these inmates. If you want examples, I will provide how one can justify these things inside the minds of people who want to justify them.

The pattern is not just among inmates of prisons, but it is common among all of us.
Clear
ειτωσιτζω

Really interesting post Clear. Thank you
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Hi @Orontes and @Watchmen

Orontes asked : "What is the bias? The comment that was agreed with involves hostility and mental states. It's not a religious topic: "(The) description of the mental dynamics of hostility and its attempt to justify itself despite a frustrating inability to do so with data. The lack of data explains the quick devolution to accusations and misrepresentations."

My agreement with Orontes observation regards how individuals act when they cannot support a position and become frustrated, yet are desperate to justify that position. If they cannot do so with data or logic, the common result is frustration which, if it cannot be resolved, it most often turns to anger and this often manifests itself as personal attacks and venom and further compromise of the ability to think logically and objectively. It can be a snowball effect.

My "bias" is not religious regarding this point, but it is common, basic medical psychology.

For example, a few years ago, my medical group was contracted to give medical care at a prison for five years. So, in addition to treating medical conditions for prisoners, I also was the crisis director. Treating prisoners allowed one to observe of a lot of repeating patterns of thinking which often underlie prisoner interactions.

For example, the pattern of attempting to justify how a prisoner (and others) felt or what they did follows this same pattern Orontes discussed. It was the fact that Orontes nailed the description of how angry and frustrated individuals act inside the attempt to justify as a response to cognitive dissonance that was very impressive. It is amazing what we as people can justify if we want. It was very easy to justify rape and murder for some of these inmates. If you want examples, I will provide how one can justify these things inside the minds of people who want to justify them.

The pattern is not just among inmates of prisons, but it is common among all of us. When we feel guilty for something, it is often that one tries to figure out a way to justify having done something. For example, if a man has a wife and family who is wonderful, but he wants to leave them. Perhaps the stress is too much for him to handle with bills and responsibilities, etc. Maybe he finds a girlfriend, etc. If he leaves, he may feel terribly guilty for leaving. This guilt is a type of cognitive dissonance. The guilt is uncomfortable and so, the natural inclination is to either return to the wife and kids that he abandoned, or to attempt to justify having abandoned his responsibilities. In order to do so, he must generate reasons why his wife was not so good after all, he must tell himself that the kids will actually be fine without him; He was right to "set his wife free" so as to find someone better and a hundred other things, most of which are more false than true.

The problem is that, unless the reasons he leaves are indeed true, and unless the man feels perfectly confident and justified in having left his wife and in breaking his promises to his family, he cannot then let the issue go. He must constantly think of ways to justify what he did. He may even project onto his wife, bad characteristics that she never had. He may even provoke her in order to make her respond in anger so as to give him evidence that it was good for him to leave.

We see this in religionists and even in athiests all the time. If a religionist leaves their religion, they must then attempt to find justification for having broken promises to God. The guilt (cognitive dissonance) is so intense that they cannot let go of this attempt to justify what they have done. The religionist who is completely confident of his / her decision has no such guilt or cognitive dissonance. They simply leave and don't have another thought about what they did. They do not feel a need to continually criticise the religion they left or to justify a decision they harbor doubts about.

Similarly, "confident" athiests often don't give religion a second thought. They are confident in their belief and don't have any motive to even investigate or to debate religion. An athiest with cognitive dissonance may doubt his belief and want to continually debate and find criticisms with religion as a way to justify his / her own doubts about their own belief / or lack of belief.

Its can be complicated.

At any rate, the description Orontes gave of this sort of behavior was something you would hear in a medical lecture. It was spot-on and profound in it's implications. That's what I liked about it. It was wise and profound and applicable.

In any case, I hope your own spiritual journeys are wonderful.

Clear
ειτωσιτζω
There is no position to prove or frustration on my part. That you think so confirms your own bias. I simply pointed out that people outside a religion could be as knowledgeable, if not more knowledgeable and unbiased, than those within a religion. It’s really that simple folks. But you are both TBMs so I’m not surprised the fangs came out. Mormons love to say if you want to learn about the Mormon Church talk to Mormons and ignore all else. Sometimes it’s a result of ignorance (the Church itself hiding things).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nPeace

Veteran Member
We don't believe men were "God-like" before their existence on earth, nPeace. I'm not sure how you came up with that. A belief in the pre-existence of man was very common at the time of Christ and persisted for quite some time after He died.
I used God-like because I was understanding a spirit person, but since that's not how you view it, perhaps you can explain what you believe a preexisting being is.

I am seeing this - Ancient Greek thought and Islam affirm pre-existence, but it is generally denied in Christianity.
So when you say, it has been around, do you mean, it has existed as an idea taught outside of pure worship, because it seems to evidently be the case.
I also don't see that teaching in the Bible.

I think what the issue is here is a disagreement as to what is meant by a "spiritual body." We don't believe that the bodies we have after we are resurrected will be the same as they were in mortality. Although they will be corporeal in nature, they will not be sustained by blood as they are now, but solely by spirit. They will be perfect, immortal and everlasting, no longer subject to disease, injury or death. That is what we believe a spiritual body to be like.
What do you believe Paul is referring to, when he speaks of spiritual bodies?
 
Top