1. 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!

Featured Does Paul Agree With LDS?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by nPeace, Sep 2, 2020.

  1. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    6,964
    Ratings:
    +1,983
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    I very much appreciate that you want to be clear. I believe that's very important in good conversation, and discussion.
    Yes, Evidently, you misunderstood me, but I believe this is due to how you are seeing spirit.

    The Bible says God is a spirit. John 4:23, 24
    The Bible also says, angels are spirit. Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 1:7

    Paul said, ". . . there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies; but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort" (1 Corinthians 15:40)

    The heavenly bodies are made for heaven... that goes without saying.
    It goes without saying too, that they are different to earthly bodies... made for earth. Paul said that.
    (1 Corinthians 15:44, 45, 47, 48)

    Thus, to live in heaven, one needs a spirit body. They must become spirit - like God, and the angels.
    (1 Corinthians 15:50)

    On earth, they are not spirits, nor do they have spirit bodies. They are physical, or fleshly beings.
    They need to eat, breath, and sleep.

    So, to be clear, there are two kinds of bodies - spirit, and fleshly; spiritual and physical; heavenly and earthly.

    Regarding the physical body - whether it be fish, duck, antelope, or man, unlike the spirit body, which is self-sustaining - doesn't need to breath, eat or sleep, to live, the physical body needs to be sustained. What sustains it?
    (James 2:26) . . . the body without spirit is dead. . .

    God provided what the physical body needs in order to keep it alive, hence all the food, water, air, and sleep will not be enough to keep one alive... if the spirit goes out.
    (Psalms 104:29) ... If you take away their spirit, they die and return to the dust.
    (Psalm 146:4) . . . His spirit goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish.

    What is the spirit that God gave to man, to sustain his life? First off, it is not a spirit body, as mentioned earlier.
    That spirit is...
    Genesis 2:7; Genesis 7:15, 22; Ecclesiastes 3:19; Isaiah 42:5
    ...the force of life - what sustains our breath. It's also called the breath of life.

    The spirit in man, therefore, is not any kind of body, or soul, that lives on after death.
    Rather, it is what represents our life, because it is what gives life too the physical body.
    Did you notice, the Bible says, man became a living soul (Genesis 2:7). The opposite to that, is a dead soul. (Ezekiel 18:4)
    Nowhere in the Bible does it speak of man having an immortal existence.

    Any prospect of life rests in God's hands during life, and after death.
    (Ecclesiastes 12:7) Then the dust returns to the earth, just as it was, and the spirit returns to the true God who gave it.

    If we die, and God remembers us, our life will be restored to us, by God. However, he gives it a body just as it has pleases him. (1 Corinthians 15:38)

    If our hope exists in the heavens, God will give us a new body for heavenly life - a spirit body.
    (Philippians 3:20, 21) 20 But our citizenship exists in the heavens, and we are eagerly waiting for a savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our humble body to be like his glorious body by his great power that enables him to subject all things to himself. (2 Corinthians 5:1; Colossians 1:5)

    However, millions of us - in fact billions, will not get a spirit body, since our citizenship is not heavenly. We have not been adopted as sons, but rather, we wait for the blessings that will come through the adopted sons.
    (Romans 8:21-23) 21 that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now. 23 Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely, the spirit,...

    In this way, God's universal family will be made up of spirit (spiritual) bodies, and fleshly (physical) bodies - heavenly and earthly creation.

    There is a lot more I can say, for clarity, but this will require more time and scripture - which I don't mind, but I don't want to overwhelm you, by making this any longer.
    What I gave here are the basic, for clarity.
    Please let me know if it's clear enough.
     
  2. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,181
    Ratings:
    +5,881
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    We believe that God created the spirits of each and every person who has ever lived or will live. Hebrews 12:9 makes a distinction between the parentage of our physical bodies and the parentage of our spirits. It says, "Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?" Apparently Scott and I have both been misinformed about the beliefs of certain other Christian groups because we had pretty much assumed that all Christians believe that each person has a spirit given to him by God, a life force, so to speak. I guess that's not the case after all. Now unlike other Christians, we believe that God created our spirits long before our physical bodies were conceived by our earthly parents, and we believe that these spirits resided in God's presence until it was time for them to enter a human body, turning that body from mere flesh and bones to a "living soul." When we say we pre-existed this life, we aren't discounting the fact that God created our spirits. We're speaking only of the timing of this creation.

    Ancient Jewish thought does, too, and this concept carried over into Christianity . There are a great many things that were taught and believed by the earliest Christians that did not end up within the pages of the Bible. There are even writings by Christ's apostles that are not in the Bible. Examining pseudepigraphical texts can be very instrumental in understanding the writings that actually are contained in the Bible. Knowing what the first-century Christian believed can help fill in the gaps where certain puzzle pieces in the Bible appear to be missing.

    In the entire 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul was speaking very specifically of the resurrection of mankind. In verse 44, he says, "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." We believe that by "a natural body," he was referring to the mortal body we each have here on earth. This body is sustained by a beating heart and blood flowing through its veins. It is subject to disease, injury and death. It is quite simply "mortal." It's not going to last forever. It was with this body we were "sown." But, we will be raised with a spiritual body -- a body which, while corporeal, is kept alive forever by the spirit (or life force) which resides within it and which will never again leave it (as it did when the mortal body died). This spiritual body will be perfect and incorruptible. It will never get old, become ill or die.

    Jesus proved to His apostles that He did indeed have a corporeal body after His resurrection. They felt his wounds themselves. At the same time, we know it was possible for Him to have appeared to them in a room where the door was closed. How did He get there? Perhaps we will know someday when we will have the same kind of spirit body He has.
     
  3. Orontes

    Orontes Master of the Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,183
    Ratings:
    +135
    Religion:
    LDS
    Your first post was a dismissive comment. After your comment was challenged, you followed with attacks on Mormonism and a series of posts of name calling.

    Your position is flawed. The flaws have been pointed out. They remain unrebutted.

    Per the above post. Mormons don't typically say " if you want to learn about the Mormon Church talk to Mormons and ignore all else " That would be dumb. The other charge: "Mormons are some of the most objectively untrustworthy people when it comes to their own beliefs." is simply a non sequitur.
     
  4. MNoBody

    MNoBody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    2,148
    Ratings:
    +980
    Religion:
    UNdecided [they all appear to be equally true]
    yes, this is merely a "sleeve" you perambulate about with till its spring winds down...the being is already immortal, always has been, always will be, this sojourn in mortality is a brief slumming phase in a maggot pit
    death, shucks, you will survive it.... we all do.
     
  5. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Ratings:
    +413
    Religion:
    Christian
    I just wanted to make a specific point regarding being careful with sourcing of our information :

    USING POOR AND INACCURATE SOURCES OF INFORMATION TO LEARN ABOUT A SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS BELIEF

    We’ve all observed the effects of bad information from poor sourcing applied to religions. Certainly the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS have experienced this. The O.P. represents another good example of why the believer or their organization is best suited to describe their own beliefs rather than using non-believers as sources of information.

    @Katzpur pointed out : “It seems to me that a direct question about what Latter-day Saints believe shouldn't really be up for debate at all. I mean, who's in a better position to be able to accurately explain what Latter-day Saints believe -- Latter-day Saints or every Tom, Dick and Harry who thinks they know? If I genuinely wanted to know what the Jehovah's Witnesses belief was on any given topic, I'd go to the JW's DIR and ask my question. (Post #`13)

    This is a good rule. And the O.P. is an example of why this is a good rule.

    The O.P. was confusing to several individuals because it was incoherent. It presented a scripture on the resurrection and compared that to the LDS doctrine that we are created in the image of God and then asked if these indicated a conflict with the doctrine of pre-existence. (three, unrelated points….)

    It was incoherent partly due to the inaccuracy of descriptions of the source the O.P. used. In this case the Wikipedia article that was written by someone who was, obviously, not particularly familiar with Church of Jesus Christ of LDS theology nor historically oriented.

    USING A NON-HISTORIAN AS A SOURCE FOR HISTORICAL INFORMATION
    The author of the description of pre-existence is not particularly historically oriented though they are attempting to present historical information.
    The author says “Ancient Greek thought and Islam affirm pre-existence, but it is generally denied in Christianity.” The historical implication is incorrect.

    The author does not point out the historical context that ancient Judaism and ancient Christianity ALSO affirmed pre-existence of spirits anciently. This leaves readers with an inaccurate conclusion.

    While the article correctly points out that Origen did believe in Pre-existence, he came to reject it in later years. The value of Origens testimony is that he tells us that pre-existence was the doctrine taught by the earliest Christians despite his ultimate rejection of it as he aged. Remember, pre-existence is the ancient Judeo-Christian doctrine and the authors mixing of ancient and modern theories creates historical incoherence and confusion.

    The article also fails to mention that one main reason for the Jewish loss of this doctrine (among the orthodox) was the prohibition from studying any theme or question having to do with pre-creation time periods. Thus, this popular ancient doctrine would have been lost among all Jews that obeyed this prohibition though the descriptions of pre-existence of spirits remains a dominant theme in their early literature.

    The author is somewhat loose with conclusions as to how the doctrine became less favorable to Catholics which influenced other christian movements. For example, the author says “Those who reject pre-existence, which would be every Christian denomination that accepts the conclusions of the Second Council of Constantinople (i.e., all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians and many Protestants)

    The conclusion that “Many protestants” do not believe the spirit exists prior to the body at birth is debatable and should probably be “some protestants” since protestants are not bound by any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox theological conclusions. In my two protestant congregations, growing up (methodist and baptist) they both believed in the pre-existence of the spirit. The wikipedia author simply doesn't give us any data supporting a theory relating to how many and which protestestants believe the spirit is created before the body (as opposed to which believe the spirits is created AT birth, or AFTER birth).


    THE BIZARRE INTERPRETATION OF THE BOOK OF MORMON TEXT

    The Wikipedia author quotes a book of Mormon text Jacob 9:8-9. which is a text dealing with future conditions if Jesus had, hypothetically, NOT accomplished his atonement. Then, In a bizarre twist of the text, the author then applies this text to describe the past pre-existence and the war in heaven. This strange use of the scripture is very bizarre and historically incoherent.

    While there are wonderful and detailed descriptions of the historical Judeo-Christian-Islamic historical belief in the war in heaven which was described in so much of the early Jewish, Christian and Islamic literature, this specific history is not described anywhere in the book of Mormon that I am aware of and it is only indirectly referenced in the Old and New Testaments and only referred to tangentially in the Holy Quran. The fuller history resides in other early historical literature.

    The point is that the O.P. uses and accepted a source that incorrectly describes LDS scriptures and offers a and historically incoherent version of that scripture creates a tendency for confusion in the subsequent discussion.

    Katzpur was correct in the very beginning. I do not think nPeace did this consciously, nor do I expect nPeace to automatically know much about early Christianity or a modern version of it, but using sourcing from believers who describe their own beliefs rather than using someone as a source who doesn’t really know much about the doctrine they are describing, (at least not enough to even use the base text correctly) is the best policy.


    Clear
    ειφυτωσεω
     
    #105 Clear, Sep 17, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,280
    Ratings:
    +784
    This is exactly what Mormons convey. If I had a nickel for every time I heard someone from the pulpit say don’t read non-Mormon sources or don’t read about the church on the internet I’d be rich.
     
  7. Orontes

    Orontes Master of the Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,183
    Ratings:
    +135
    Religion:
    LDS
    Rubbish. I've never heard such. Given the statements you've made in this thread your assertion has no credibility.

    Go find some official statement that claims: " if you want to learn about the Mormon Church talk to Mormons and ignore all else." Alternatively, if you wish to claim that isn't an official stance, but something that exists within the membership, provide say 10 or so statements from Mormons on these forums that assume that position. If this posture is as common as you say, it should be easy.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. nPeace

    nPeace Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2018
    Messages:
    6,964
    Ratings:
    +1,983
    Religion:
    Follower of Christ
    Hebrews 12:9 is the only verse in the Bible that says spiritual life, and that does not mean a life inside of you necessarily, as it can mean your spiritual life -the life you now live according to spirit, and not flesh. For claruity... In other words, just as we say, spiritual person, or spiritual minds - focused on spiritual things... living according to Christ.

    I too would be equally surprised if you did not understand that we believe the spirit is the force of life which every human needs to live, and it must come from God. otherwise, how could we be living.
    I am surprised though, that people actually believe the spirit needed to be created, as though is is an object of sort, holding elements. This is new to me.
    So do you believe this spirit is some sort of body with characteristics?
    What do you think of Psalm 104:29, 30? ... If you take away their spirit, they expire, And back to their dust they go. If you send forth your spirit, they are created; And you make the face of the ground new. . .

    So you are referring to writings outside the Bible.
    I personally believe the Bible to be true, primarily for it's overall harmony, and its coherent message, so for me to accept those other writings, they too must be in harmony, and since they are not, that make them not so useful, to me.
    What the Bible presents has indeed filled in the gaps.
    Perhaps you can refer to just one book which you believe goes hand in hand with the Bible. I'll take a look.

    I can agree with the first part, because Paul indeed spoke of the first - physical - being from the dust.
    However, what scripture(s) lead you to conclude that Paul is describing a spirit body as a physical, or material body, that needs spirit to sustain it?
    This I do not see in Paul's writings.
    Do you think the angels and God have such a body, and why do you arrive at your conclusions?

    Oh, I see. You believe the body Jesus had as seen by his apostles was his actual spirit body.
    Do you also believe that the angels that came down to men, for example those that ate with Job, the one that protected the three Hebrews thrown into the fire, and the one that rescued Peter from prison, all have this same body?

    I believe they are spirit like God, which is not material, based on the fact that spirit in the Bible, never at any time means material. There is always a clear distinction between physical, and spiritual.
    *** it-2 p. 1017 Spirit ***
    The Greek pneuʹma (spirit) comes from pneʹo, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the Hebrew ruʹach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. Ruʹach and pneuʹma, then, basically mean “breath” but have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) They can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit. (Compare Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971, Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects.

    However, I could understand why you gave it a physical, or material concept, because a spirit person is nor necessarily like wind, but has form, and personality - thus a person with bodily form, though not fleshly.
    I don't think we ill get too far, trying to describe spirit, so we can leave that.
    The important thing, I think, is to recognize that a spirit body is far different to a physical body.
    I still would like to know where you got the idea that a spirit body needs spirit to sustain it though.
     
  9. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Ratings:
    +413
    Religion:
    Christian



    CREDIBILITY IS A RESOURCE THAT CAN BE SQUANDERED

    I agree with @Orontes . The claim is rubbish.

    I have never heard such a statement from the pulpit and in fact have many times heard quotes from the scriptures that the LDS are taught to "become acquainted with all good books, and with languages, tongues, and people" (D&C 90:15).

    Watchmens' silly claim goes in the face of the LDS teaching to "seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning even by study and also by faith" (D&C 88:118) and the LDS tendency to teach it's members to learn about others in order to better empathize and understand them.

    I remember feeling more freedom after discovering the restorational movement than I ever had before becoming a convert to it. I even took my children to multiple other churches so that they could see and feel the difference between the LDS church and others. I think they were happy that I did that for them.

    Credibility and the ability to trust a person is like all other resources, It can be squandered and wasted. Once lost, it can slowly be recovered over a long period of time. The problem is that once it is lost then, like the boy who cried wolf, no one will then believe you when you want to make a true claim since the credibility was lost on false ones.




    VINDICTIVENESS IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

    I also agree with Orontes that bias and vindictiveness rob Watchmen of any credibility.

    The problem with vindictiveness is that it doesn't work to justify any cognitive dissonance such as guilt and, because vindictiveness is, itself, improper and undeserved, it serves to cause its own cognitive dissonance and guilt. It cannot soothe the conscience. It cannot unify relationships. It cannot win arguments. It cannot take the place of objective data. Even the loss of credibility itself results in a different type of frustration (“Nobody trusts me. Boo whoo” – i.e. the “whiner syndrome”). It is counterproductive regardless of the religion it is used against.

    Vindictiveness doesn't have a mechanism by which it can be made productive or produce agreement. It simply doesn’t work.


    Clear
    εισετζακω
     
    #109 Clear, Sep 18, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
  10. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Ratings:
    +413
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi @Katzpur and @nPeace and @Scott C. et al.

    I think one of the problems is that nPeace represents a more modern type of Christian movement having different interpretations and different beliefs than that of ancient Judeo-Christianity while @Katzpur and @scott C are describing a much more ancient type of Christian movement with it's own intepretations and underlying beliefs than that of the 19th century derived interpretations of the Jehovahs Witness movement.

    Modern movements with their beliefs and interpretations are never going to reconcile with the earliest version of Christian beliefs and their ancient interpretations.

    Clear
    εισετζακω
     
    #110 Clear, Sep 18, 2020
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2020
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. Orontes

    Orontes Master of the Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,183
    Ratings:
    +135
    Religion:
    LDS
    Exactly so.

    The Watchman model is antithetical to the Mormon scripture. Note the below:

    "For behold, the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have; therefore we see that the Lord doth counsel in wisdom, according to that which is just and true." - Book of Mormon, Alma 29:8

    The claim of the text is exhaustive, not exclusive. The Lord gives to all nations his word in some degree or fashion. Therefore within the text most associated with Mormonism there is a categorical recognizing value in the Other that spans both geography and time. This is the very opposite of the strawman presented. Mormonism is able to make its own truth claims, while also able to recognize and embrace the good and true, wherever it may be found.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,181
    Ratings:
    +5,881
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I think you nailed it, @Clear. Mormonism, as you well know, has so much more in common with 1st-century Judeo-Christianity than it has with, let's say, 4th-century Christianity. You simply cannot divorce the Jewish background of the very earliest Christians from the religion they practiced. While the Jehovah's Witnesses may believe that the Jewish elements of their faith should have been done away with entirely, you, @Orontes, @Scott C. and I recognize that their Jewish beliefs were integral to their new-found faith. And Jesus Christ, coming from a Jewish heritage himself, knew and understood these beliefs. He was sent to fulfill God's promise of a Messiah, but not to destroy Judaism in the process. Your knowledge of the many early Judeo-Christian documents far exceeds mine, but I find the parallels between the beliefs of the first Christians and the beliefs of the Latter-day Saints to be astounding.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Clear

    Clear Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,247
    Ratings:
    +413
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi @Katzpur

    Part of the reason that the ancient and more original Christianity cannot be reconciled to the newer, more modern Christian movements is the different underlying assumptions/beliefs and the interpretation the two different religions apply to texts.

    For example, Ecclesiates 17:7 says : “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it”. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

    Deeje, the Jehovahs Witness who is part of a more modern Christian religion, explains what this verse, in their religion means : “Returning the "spirit" (breath) to a resurrected human is what Ecclesiastes means.” (post #91 different thread)

    In Early Judeo-Christianity, there was no need to reinterpret Ecclesiates.
    To the early Judeo-Christians Ecclesiates 12:7 meant just what it says : “Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it”. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)
    AND, the scripture says the spirit returns to God, not to " a resurrected human".


    While there are many modern Christian movements having multiple theories and doctrines with their own interpretation of scriptures, I do not think any of the competing later movement with their doctrines and interpretations are more logical or rational or historically coherent as the earliest Christian movement.

    1) ADAM WAS A "TWO PART" BEING IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE.

    When the text says “God shaped man.” (Gen 2:7), the early literature makes clear that this phrase only refers to the lifeless body of Adam. There was a second part that was added to this body formed of elements of this earth, and that was the spirit, described as the “breath/spirit of life”. It was placed into the lifeless body “And he breathed into his face the breath of life”. In early Christian narratives, God forms the lifeless body and then places a spirit into that body to form a living thing, a soul.

    For example, in Early Christian Abbaton, God forms the body of Adam, and then waits for a time before placing a spirit into it.

    “And He (God) took the clay …and made Adam according to Our image and likeness, and He left him lying for forty days and forty nights without putting breath into him. And he heaved sighs over him daily, saying, "If I put breath into this [man], he must suffer many pains." (Abbaton) The text makes clear that THIS "Adam" is a spiritless, lifeless body, before any spirit is placed into it.

    Such deeply imbedded context permeates the early Judeo-Christian literature.

    The early Christian text On "the origin of the world" also relates this same early Christian doctrine : “...he was afraid lest perhaps the man come into his molded body and rule over it. Because of this, he left his molded body forty days without spirit. And he withdrew and left him.” The point is that it is the spirit which God placed into Adam which gave life and intelligence to the lifeless body.

    Multiple early documents confirm this ancient Christian understanding. For example : Gospel of Phillip explains “The soul of Adam came into being by means of a breath, which is a synonym for spirit." And another version says “Adam came into being from two virgins, from the Spirit and from the virgin earth.

    This Christian doctrine forms the context underlying early Christian literature. For example, the narrative from Life of Adam and Eve (apocalypse) says that after Adam dies “1 … God called Adam and said, “Adam, Adam.” And the body answered from the ground and said, “Here I am, Lord.” 2 And the Lord said to him, “I told you that you are dust and to dust you shall return. 3 Now I promise to you the resurrection; I shall raise you on the last day in the resurrection with every man of your seed.” (41:1-3) In such literature, it is not Adams' lifeless body decomposing in the ground which is able to speak to God, but it is Adams still living spirit which had been placed in the body during Adams lifetime which is answering God.

    In the same context of man as a dual creature (body and spirit) when God said to Michael (Gospel of Bartholemew) “Bring me earth from the four ends of the world and water out of the four rivers of Paradise. And when Michael had brought them to him, he formed Adam in the east, and gave form to the shapeless earth, and stretched sinews and veins, and united everything into a harmonious whole. (Ch IV) This text is describing the formation of the lifeless body when he says “he formed Adam”. The narrative makes clear that the spirit had not yet been placed into the lifeless body at this point. Without a spirit in the body, it is lifeless.


    2) IN EARLY LITERATURE, THE SPIRIT PLACED INTO THE BODY WAS WHAT GAVE THE BODY LIFE AND INTELLIGENCE AND EMOTIONS

    The earliest sacred Christian literature confirms the spirit existed separately from the body which the spirit is placed into. For example, Testaments of the twelve explain “For just as a potter knows the pot, how much it holds, and brings clay for it accordingly, so also the Lord forms the body in correspondence to the spirit, and instills the spirit corresponding to the power of the body.” Napthali 2:2-5

    In apo Ezekiel (fragment one, chap 2) speaks of the attempt by a spirit (during the judgment) to blame evil deeds on the body it was place into. “The body says, ‘The spirit sinned, for from the day it separated from me, behold, I have been lying like a silent stone in the grave.’ Also the spirit can say, ‘The body sinned, for from the day I separated from it, behold I have been flying in the air like a bird.” (This is the same as the explanation from the Babylonia Talmuds version of this same story, Sanhedrin 91a,b) In the narratives of such literature, it is clear that the Body and Spirit are separate things.


    3) THERE ARE MULTIPLE VERSIONS OF EZEKIEL 12:7s DOCTRINE IN EARLY JUDEO-CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

    Speaking of a brother who died, the Rechabites spoke of their belief : “9 And then the spirit of our blessed brother leaves the body in which it had settled; and with joy far removed from mourning it approaches and comes to the holy angels and ascends up to God with joy. 10 But we with one accord see the spirit when it leaves the body clearly and plainly; the appearance of the spirit when it leaves the body is the likeness of a glorious light, and formed and imprinted in the likeness and type of the body, and it is spiritually flying. History of the Rechabites 15:9-10

    Multiple versions clarify and confirm this doctrine of the Body and it’s elements returning to the earth, while the spirit returns to God. “Therefore, fear not death. For that which is from me, that is the spirit, departs for heaven. That which is from the earth, that is the body, departs for the earth from which it was taken.” The Greek Apocalypse of Ezra 6:26 & 7:1-4;

    I do not think that the later, more modern Christian movements with their interpretations have any advantage over the earliest Christian movements (or with a restoration of that movement) in terms of logical and rationality and intuitiveness.

    In any case, good luck in coming to your own models regarding the relationship of the spirit and the body.


    Clear
    εισετωειω
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Katzpur

    Katzpur Not your average Mormon

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    30,181
    Ratings:
    +5,881
    Religion:
    LDS Christian
    I'm not sure precisely what it is we're arguing, @nPeace. I would agree that one's "spiritual life" can and often does mean how we should focus our lives on spiritual things as opposed to temporal things. I'm not denying that at all. Hebrews 12:9 is not arguing against that. It is doing nothing more than describing God as the "Father of [our] spirits," as opposed to our earthly fathers who are the "fathers of our flesh." Each of us, of course, has different earthly parents. But we are all God's children in that He is the Father of each and every one of our spirits. Acts 17:29 very specifically states that we are "the offspring of God." He is our Father; we are His offspring. Genesis 2:7 says that when God breathed "the breath of life," into Adam, Adam "became a living soul." It is that same "breath of life" that we Latter-day Saints refer to as our "spirit." We believe that the spirit is eternal. It never dies. It simply leaves the body for a period of time, at which time the body dies. At this point, there is no longer "a living soul." There is just a dead body and a living spirit. 2 Corinthians 12:2 is interesting in this regard. It says, "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven." To me, this clearly shows that a person's life force (i.e. his spirt) can exist and have experiences while outside of the body.

    Well, you don't need to be surprised then, because I do understand that.

    Latter-day Saints believe that all spirit is matter. It's just highly refined matter that cannot normally be seen by the naked eye. How could the spirit exist if God did not create it? And if He is the Father of our spirits, then it goes without saying that He created them, just as our physical bodies were created through the sex act between our parents.

    I take it to mean that when someone's spirit leaves his body, he dies, and that body returns to dust. Since, according to scripture, we are "God's offspring," we each carry with us a spark of divinity. Every life form carries with it the traits of its parents, and ours is no different. We believe that God created our spirits out of highly refined matter that was co-eternal with Him. In other words, the raw materials were there. He used them to create the spirits of His offspring.

    There isn't "a book" of early Old World, Judeo-Christian scripture that goes hand in hand with the Bible, and I never said there was. There are, however, excerpts from various early sermons that give us very interesting insights into the religious beliefs and practices of Christ's earliest followers. Perhaps (and I'm just speculating here) these teachings are not found in the New Testament because they were already commonly accepted truths, and not new ideas that needed to be introduced to Jesus' audience. I can tell you one thing. @Clear knows more about these writings than the rest of us Latter-day Saints on this forum combined. Ask him for specific examples, and he'll be able to provide them far more efficiently than I would.

    I'm not sure why it Paul's writings would be any more authoritative on this subject than Jesus Christ himself. When He first appeared to His Apostles after His resurrection, it was with a material body. They were frightened because they thought they were seeing a spirit. This, incidentally, implies that there are instances in which a spirit can be visible to the naked eye. Jesus responded by saying that He was not a spirit, but that He had a corporeal body. If, however, they had been looking at merely a body, that body wouldn't have been alive. This is because, as you pointed out, "the spirit is the force of life which every human needs to live." As to why I believe what I do about the resurrected body being sustained solely by spirit as opposed to by a beating heart and blood flowing through veins, I don't get this from the Bible. I realize that, to you, if it's not in the Bible, it must not be true. That's not how I look at it. Joseph Smith taught, " The resurrected body is tangible, but when the flesh is quickened by the Spirit there will be "spirit in their [veins] and not blood." I believe this truth was revealed to him by God. Again, though, I should emphasize, that when I say the resurrected body is "tangible," I absolutely do not believe it to be "mortal." It will be immortal, glorious and perfect, and no longer subject to illness, injury or death.

    With respect to God, yes, I believe that He has a tangible body that resembles that of His offspring, who were "created in His image." Latter-day Saints believe angels to be essentially messengers that God sends to earth. They are human in form (e.g. they do not have wings, etc.). They may be individuals who have not yet lived a mortal life or individuals who have lived a mortal life but then been resurrected. (The second would be less common.) So, it would all depend upon where they were in the stage of their existence whether or not they had a tangible body.

    Yes.

    I think I covered this a couple of paragraphs ago.

    Yes, there definitely is a difference between spiritual and physical, but we Latter-day Saints believe that while a spirit can live outside of a body, a body cannot be alive without a spirit residing within it. Here's how Joseph Smith expressed it: "[The spirit] existed before the body, can exist in the body; and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection, be again united with it." He also explained that it is only when the spirit and the body are inseparably connected (after the resurrection of man) that man can receive a fullness of joy.

    By the way, I've heard JWs say, "We don't have a soul. We are a soul." We LDS would agree with that, but to us, a soul is a body + a spirit.

    Hopefully I've answered these questions in my responses above. If I haven't, please let me know.
     
  15. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,280
    Ratings:
    +784
    It’s decades of experience sitting in sacrament meeting. Just because you deny it doesn’t make it untrue.
     
  16. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,280
    Ratings:
    +784
    Shrug. You and your buddy Orontes can keep your heads in the sand. Just because you don’t believe me doesn’t make it rubbish.
     
  17. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,280
    Ratings:
    +784
    Let’s get started, shall we?

    What Would You Do?

    Q&A: Questions and Answers

    And here’s an interesting story of how the Church’s approach has actually created doubt in many members. Some Mormons Search the Web and Find Doubt
     
  18. Orontes

    Orontes Master of the Horse

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    1,183
    Ratings:
    +135
    Religion:
    LDS
    "

    The above is a non sequitur.


    This was the claim:

    "if you want to learn about the Mormon Church talk to Mormons and ignore all else."

    I asked for something official from the Church that makes such a claim? Alternatively, I asked for 10 or so examples from LDS that post on these forums, given the other claim 'if you had a nickel for every time you'd heard it, you would be rich' indicating this is a very very common sentiment. Where are those sources?

    What you supply is about anti-Mormon material. That isn't the same claim. Try again
     
  19. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,280
    Ratings:
    +784
    Mormons view anything critical of the church as anti-Mormon.

    the sources to my original statement are my countless experiences sitting in sacrament meeting.
     
Loading...