Did Human Spirits Exist Before Creation?

[Ray]

So, yes, we must endure to the end: with our actions AND our beliefs.

... but we must also continue to learn from God, until we know ALL truth, while discarding any false ideas and beliefs we may have... that became a part of us as we simply accepted what people other than God taught us... including some people with the best of intentions... such as our mothers and fathers, and even "good" preachers, who simply accept some precepts and traditions from men.

Heh, sorry, but I was in kindof a hurry to get out of here yesterday and wanted to add that thought. :)

[Christos]

I am coming to the end of "The Orthodox Way" by Bishop Kallistos Ware and I have come across a most excellent paragraph.

It is from a subtopic on "Union with God" and this is the first of three examples of unity.

First, there is between the three persons of the Trintiy a union according to essence: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "one in essence". But between God and the saints no such union takes place. Although "ingodded" or "deified", the saints do not become additional members of the Trinity. God remains God, and man remains man. Man becomes god by grace, but not God in essence. The distinction between Creator and creature still continues: it is bridged by mutual love but not abolished. God, however near he draws to man, still remains the "Wholly Other"

I just thought the different viewpoint from a learned theologian would be interesting.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I just thought the different viewpoint from a learned theologian would be interesting.

The musician has changed but the song is the same. :)

The core disagreement is whether our spirits were descended from God or created by God (like making a lego man). I see no union of belief any time soon. Nice quote though, as far as couching your views in a more formal paragraph.

[mdb]

John 9: 2 who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind.

This response ignores the obvious question posed in this scripture. The question being posed to Jesus was seen by the people as having two possibilities. Both possibilities are seen as having to take place prior to the man’s birth. Possibility 1. Is that the parents sinned and therefore the sin was answered upon the head of the children – There is precedence for this possibility in scripture. I am sure PC did not mean to imply that children never bare the sins of the parents – implying that there is conflict with the teaching of Jesus and scripture – he was not refuting scripture.

The Traveler

True, the teachings of Jesus do not conflict with the Scriptures. You fail to recall the Scriptures which say a man will be responsible for his own iniquity. Those days have come with the coming of Jesus Christ our Lord.

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin.

Deut 24:16

However he did not execute their children, but did as it is written in the Law in the Book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, “The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; but a person shall die for his own sin.”

2 Chr 25:4

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Ezek 18:20

In those days they shall say no more:

‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,

And the children’s teeth are set on edge.’

But every one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Jer 31:29,30

For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But let each one examine his own work, and then he will have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For each one shall bear his own load.

Gal 6:3-5

Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.

Gal 6:7

[Christos]

<div class='quotemain'>

I just thought the different viewpoint from a learned theologian would be interesting.

The musician has changed but the song is the same. :)

The core disagreement is whether our spirits were descended from God or created by God (like making a lego man). I see no union of belief any time soon. Nice quote though, as far as couching your views in a more formal paragraph.

We were created by God, in your words " like making a lego man".

We were created from dust and to dust shall we return.

Also we are made, not begotten, unlike the member of the trinity.

[Guest funkyfool]

yes no maybe so

[Christos]

elaborate.

[Ray]

The core disagreement is whether our spirits were descended from God or created by God (like making a lego man).

You said that as if the two ideas are mutually exclusive... but they're not.

Or maybe you just don't see the "building blocks" which make up the "parts" we have?

If not, try realizing that each of us have DNA in each of the parts we have, which not only puts our "parts" together, but determine which "parts" we'll have.

Sing it with me now... the foot bones are connected to the... leg bones... the leg bones are connected to the... thigh bones... the thigh bones are connected to the... back bones... as they make up the "parts" we have. :)

And btw, some of our parts are big and noticable, but each of the big parts are made up of teeennny tiiiiiiinnny parts that we can't really see right now.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

You said that as if the two ideas are mutually exclusive... but they're not.

They are Ray, at least using the definitions I had in mind.

Or maybe you just don't see the "building blocks" which make up the "parts" we have?

I said we are either begotten or created. Perhaps I should have said manufactured or constructed. I'm not quibbling about DNA and such, but spiritually we were either "born" as a mortal baby is "born." Not meaning following a 9 month gestation period, but as the fruit of two parents. You could say yeah, that's "creating," but my point was that we aren't something God just pieced together in His workshop. We are literally God's spirit children.

As opposed to, "Hmmm, this bit of nebular dust looks promising...now let's see, take one pinch of dust, fold into five cups of carbon, heat on high for two thousand years...wow, I've created a spirit!" Forgive the sarcasm, but you get the point.

There is a difference between being begotten and manufactured/created.

[Ray]

Heh, okay, try thinking about what happens in the womb, or before even those parts were formed, because each of us is made up of "parts" from the ones who created us. :)

[mdb]

<div class='quotemain'>

You said that as if the two ideas are mutually exclusive... but they're not.

They are Ray, at least using the definitions I had in mind.

Or maybe you just don't see the "building blocks" which make up the "parts" we have?

I said we are either begotten or created. Perhaps I should have said manufactured or constructed. I'm not quibbling about DNA and such, but spiritually we were either "born" as a mortal baby is "born." Not meaning following a 9 month gestation period, but as the fruit of two parents. You could say yeah, that's "creating," but my point was that we aren't something God just pieced together in His workshop. We are literally God's spirit children.

As opposed to, "Hmmm, this bit of nebular dust looks promising...now let's see, take one pinch of dust, fold into five cups of carbon, heat on high for two thousand years...wow, I've created a spirit!" Forgive the sarcasm, but you get the point.

There is a difference between being begotten and manufactured/created.

I'm seeing a lot of talk about being begotten. What does it mean when Jesus is called the only "begotten" Son? Isaac was not Abraham’s “only begotten” in a physical, created sense, but he was called his only begotten son. Abraham also begat Ishmael. Isaac was “begotten” in a unique or favored sense since through him was the promise and not through Ishmael. (Heb 11:17)

The phrase "only begotten" does not mean created, but unique, blessed, favored. Through Jesus the new covenant came to fulfillment (the promise given to Abraham - that his descendants would be as numerous as the sands on the seashore). Jesus being the only begotten Son does not mean Jesus was created. He is called the "ETERNAL" God and the word "eternal" means without beginning or end.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

I'm seeing a lot of talk about being begotten. What does it mean when Jesus is called the only "begotten" Son?

I answered this earlier. Jesus was the Firstborn spirit child of God among all of us, but the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. Jesus is the only person ever to have lived on earth whose Father was God and mother was a mortal (Mary). All of us have two mortal parents; Jesus didn't.

I think you misunderstood my posts. You spent alot of your post saying that only begotten doesn't mean created. I didn't say it did! I said the opposite. Our spirit bodies were begotten or born, not created from a list of celestial ingredients cooked in a pot or assembled like a robot.

He is called the "ETERNAL" God and the word "eternal" means without beginning or end.

You came in late on this thread. I explained elsewhere that LDS believe every mortal is composed of three separate parts: our "intelligence" (a word from our Doctrine and Covenants having nothing to do with IQ, but denoting our core consciousness/personality/unique identity); our spirit body which is similar in appearance to a physical body (arms, legs, etc...); and our physical body. Our "intelligence" (refer to the above definition) animates our spirit body, which in turn animates our physical body. Picture a hand in a glove: hand=spirit body; glove=physical body.

We believe our intelligence or consciousness was not created or made, so in that sense Jesus is without beginning or end. To say that his spirit body was begotten or came to be at a certain time doesn't rob Jesus of his eternal nature, any more than his physical body being begotten at a certain time makes him un-eternal (pardon the ad hoc term).

When non-LDS Christians say Jesus is without beginning or end, we agree, but we mean his "intelligence" or his unique being. We don't believe his spirit body or physical body has to have existed forever for him to be truly "eternal," as if anything less would be fudging things. But since non-LDS don't believe in "intelligence" + spirit body + physical body = whole being, there can be no meeting of the minds and hence no true agreement or disagreement since we're starting from different places.

[mdb]

When non-LDS Christians say Jesus is without beginning or end, we agree, but we mean his "intelligence" or his unique being. We don't believe his spirit body or physical body has to have existed forever for him to be truly "eternal," as if anything less would be fudging things. But since non-LDS don't believe in "intelligence" + spirit body + physical body = whole being, there can be no meeting of the minds and hence no true agreement or disagreement since we're starting from different places.

I believe non-LDS do say there are 3 entities which make up a man. Body - spirit - soul. It is said that spirit and soul are somewhat used interchangeably within the Scriptures, but they are separate elements. I would agree with you, we are made up of 3 parts.

Body - physical being

spirit - our spiritual being

soul - our personality, mind, "intelligence"

Why does it say in Genesis that man's soul was formed (came into being) at his physical creation?

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7)

[Ray]

But your definition of “soul” comes from your interpretation of the scriptures, NOT from the words themselves, and even then you’re not using all of the scriptures to help you to understand “us”.

So I recommend that you ponder the words in the scriptures, including ALL God has given to us, while seeking your inspiration from God to help you understand the “beings” He created, or “us”.

And in the spirit of love and friendship I’ll give you a link to all of those words, but, to be of any use to you, you’re going to have to study them, while seeking God’s inspiration and assurance.

Soul

OR

If you’re not interested in studying all of the words of God while asking God to help you understand “us”, I’ll give you a summary and state it very simply, our soul is our spirit and body….as stated in God’s own words, and those words He used there are in complete and total harmony with all the other words God inspired His other prophets to write.

Heh, but you can disagree if you want to, as if that can alter the truth, but know that what God has stated is totally true, and we can all be assured of that by God.

I hope you'll have a good day. :)

[mdb]

But your definition of “soul” comes from your interpretation of the scriptures, NOT from the words themselves, and even then you’re not using all of the scriptures to help you to understand “us”.

....

So I recommend that you ponder the words in the scriptures, including ALL God has given to us, while seeking your inspiration from God to help you understand the “beings” He created, or “us”.

All quotes are taken from the links you provided for me to look at:

From the D&C, it states that the soul of a man = spirit + body and that without one or the other, there is no soul. The make-up of a "living soul" is the unity of the two. Therefore, when a man dies and his spirit leaves his body, that man would cease to exist as a living soul.

And the spirit and the body are the soul of man. (D&C 88:15)

Then, in the BOM it says that the spirit or the soul can be raised apart from the bodily resurrection. How is this possible if the soul, by definition (D&C 88:15) is the complete unit of spirit and body?

Now, there are some that have understood that this state of happiness and this state of misery of the soul, before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. Yea, I admit it may be termed a resurrection, the araising of the spirit or the soul and their consignation to happiness or misery, according to the words which have been spoken. (Alma 40:15)

I believe the soul is an essence separate from the body and is not destroyed by death. It is distinguished from other parts of the body (as indicated from the following passage which was in the list of Scriptures you gave me).

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt 10:28)

Again, here the spirit, soul, and body are shown as separate:

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thess 5:23)

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb 4:12)

The souls of martyred men are under the altar. I'm sure you would agree that this account is before the resurrection and that those John saw under the altar were not fleshly bodies + spirit = soul, but the souls of men separated from their bodies at their physical death - those slain and waiting for the Lord to avenge their blood (Rev 6:10).

When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. (Rev 6:9)

[prisonchaplain]

This handily addresses a concern noted elsewhere: Would God really allow an apostasy from truth and authority to occur from the death of the last New Testament apostle until the birth of Joseph Smith? While this issue is tangential, I want to make an observation in passing. The foundation of the belief in an apostasy is free will or free agency. Put simply, God won't save us against our will or force us to be righteous. The foundation of Christ's New Testament church was apostles and prophets according to Ephesians 2:19-20. This foundation was destroyed with the martyrdom of the New Testament apostles (see Fox's Book of Martyrs).

It is one thing to contend that individuals, and perhaps even whole congregations might give themselves over to apostasy. However, the entire Christian world? The whole church...not one that stays true? Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against his church. And the grand span of the biblical account is one of a remnant of believers prevailing until conviction and repentence comes to the House of God. No, the belief in free will (or free agency) does not extend to a belief that the whole of creation would embrace apostasy for 1700+ years.

Now if God won't force anyone to be righteous, who would He call to be the foundation of the church? Absent a foundation, even the best-built structures collapse. This is an over-simplification. See James E. Talmage's excellent (and brief) book "The Great Apostasy" for insight into this most troubling of LDS beliefs.

I would argue that Christ is the rock, the foundation, upon which his church is built. Peter's confession was that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God--and it is upon this confession--this rock--that Christ builds his church. It wasn't about Peter, or the disciples, or who would be greatest in the Kingdom--it has always been about Jesus.

[Ray]

From the D&C, it states that the soul of a man = spirit + body and that without one or the other, there is no soul. The make-up of a "living soul" is the unity of the two. Therefore, when a man dies and his spirit leaves his body, that man would cease to exist as a living soul.

And the spirit and the body are the soul of man. (D&C 88:15)

Then, in the BOM it says that the spirit or the soul can be raised apart from the bodily resurrection. How is this possible if the soul, by definition (D&C 88:15) is the complete unit of spirit and body?

You’re still not interpreting the scriptures correctly, so keep trying with inspiration from God.

Now, there are some that have understood that this state of happiness and this state of misery of the soul, before the resurrection, was a first resurrection. Yea, I admit it may be termed a resurrection, the raising of the spirit or the soul and their consignation to happiness or misery, according to the words which have been spoken. (Alma 40:15)

I believe the soul is an essence separate from the body and is not destroyed by death. It is distinguished from other parts of the body (as indicated from the following passage which was in the list of Scriptures you gave me).

Try reading Alma 40:15 again, beginning with the beginning of the chapter. Notice how Alma wrote, beginning with verse 1, that he had tried to understand this issue by seeking inspiration from God, as he talked or wrote to one of his sons about the separation of the spirit from the body, (which is the dissolution of the soul). Notice particularly verses 11-14, where Alma uses the word soul to refer to the state of the total person until the time of their resurrection,, and he further declares that he is giving his opinion in verse 20 while talking or writing to his son.

And btw, the scriptures are made up of the words of people as they wrote with inspiration from God, so we shouldn’t believe that all of the scriptures are the actual words of God… except where the prophets of God have actually written the actual words of God… as Joseph did in D&C 88:15.

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matt 10:28)

Again, here the spirit, soul, and body are shown as separate:

Our Lord actually meant that we should fear Him who is able to separate the spirit from its body, and the body from His spirit, in hell.

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thess 5:23)

Again, a prophet of God speaks or writes using his own words to convey the ideas that are or were inspired by God, and here we have the apostle Paul using his own words to describe the complete person in his letter to the Thessalonians. And the words of the apostle Paul are not as perfect as the words used by our Lord.

For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb 4:12)

Yes, and the words of others who are inspired by God can also do that to us if we interpret them correctly.

The souls of martyred men are under the altar. I'm sure you would agree that this account is before the resurrection and that those John saw under the altar were not fleshly bodies + spirit = soul, but the souls of men separated from their bodies at their physical death - those slain and waiting for the Lord to avenge their blood (Rev 6:10).

The word “soul” was used by many prophets of God to refer to the complete persons we are, so any time our spirit bodies become separated from our physical bodies, or our spirit AND physical bodies both become separated from God, we can refer to that separation as the destruction or dissolution of our souls, which consist of our spirits and bodies.

When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. (Rev 6:9)

Or in other words, John saw the persons who had been killed by having their physical bodies put in the condition where the spirit was compelled to leave, and the reason they were killed was because of their testimonies from God which assured them that Jesus was and is the Christ.

And btw, you and I and everyone else also need an assurance from God to assure us that Jesus was and is the Christ, as well as how to interpret His words and the words written by His prophets, and unless and until we actually receive our assurances from God we are only relying on the assurances of men (and women) like us.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Then, in the BOM it says that the spirit or the soul can be raised apart from the bodily resurrection. How is this possible if the soul, by definition (D&C 88:15) is the complete unit of spirit and body?

Because the Lord said so. It really is that simple. One of the centerpieces of the LDS faith is belief in continuing revelation and new scripture. If the Lord wants to clarify in simple, direct terms that spirit means one thing and soul means a different thing, who are you or I to say, "Ah, ah, aaah....you tied your hands with that little Book of Mormon passage, try again."

Focusing on words and not meanings wastes more time in debating "mormonism" than anything else. What do I mean? Aren't specific words important? Sure, but what words literally mean isn't always what someone intends when they use them. For example, take someone in 30 A.D. Jerusalem who has no idea what the internet is (nevermind the space-time continuum impossibilities of this hypothetical). If such a person was to read an Aramaic translation of the English phrase, "The web ticks me off when it doesn't run right," and absent a knowledge of what we mean by "web" and "ticks me off," they might very well picture a spiderweb on legs putting tick marks on someone's forehead as it trips over its feet...but that's not what the phrase means, is it?

The one thing every non-LDS Christian needs to understand is that never, ever, no matter what, are LDS going to abandon our beliefs because of one or two Bible verses that seem to contradict our other scriptures. What's that you say? Genesis says a man's spirit is a soul or something OTHER than D&C 88:15? I wish I'd known that, look how much time I've wasted with Mormonism, gosh.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

It is one thing to contend that individuals, and perhaps even whole congregations might give themselves over to apostasy. However, the entire Christian world?

By apostasy I mean loss of essential gospel truths (not all of them) such as the true mode of baptism etc... AND the authority to direct God's kingdom on earth. By saying there was a worldwide apostasy, I'm not saying everyone turned evil and spat upon the cross. I'm saying that without authorized priesthood leaders chosen by Christ, false doctrines and false ordinances replace true ones without anyone to correct or contain the breakdown. Even inspired men like Martin Luther and other reformers lacked the priesthood that went with the apostles to their graves. Saying there was an apostasy doesn't demonize everyone who claimed to be Christian after the apostles died in the first century A.D. It simply means truth-seekers couldn't fully come to God according to the pattern laid down by His Son Jesus Christ, which requires specific ordinances and authority to perform them.

I would argue that Christ is the rock, the foundation, upon which his church is built.

The problem is that's not what Ephesians 2:19-20 says. It doesn't leave Christ out of the equation, in fact it says he is the chief cornerstone of the foundation of the church. If Christ didn't need apostles on earth to guide his church according to his will, why in the world did he organize his church that way in the first place? Why was it so important for there to be a replacement of Judas Iscariot in the quorum of the twelve apostles as recorded in Acts 1?

Believing there was an apostasy doesn't mean "the gates of hell prevailed" against the church. Now, if God stood idle and never restored or reversed the apostasy then yeah, I think that'd qualify as prevailing. BUT...the whole message of the LDS church is that God has acted, has shut the gates of hell, has reversed the apostasy and is triumphing over Satan. I really do tire of the accusation that believing there was an apostasy means God is somehow weak and "couldn't even preserve his own church." We might as well level that accusation against God for letting Israel wander amidst an idolatrous Egypt for 435 years without a prophet or true doctrine from Above. But that'd be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

The whole history of the scriptures is in fact a record of apostasy (loss of truths and authority) and resotrations. Especially noteworthy is the restoration under Ezra and Nehemiah (finding lost scriptures, building and dedicating a temple, entering a covenant with God, regaining true worship and doctrine).

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

This handily addresses a concern noted elsewhere: Would God really allow an apostasy from truth and authority to occur from the death of the last New Testament apostle until the birth of Joseph Smith? While this issue is tangential, I want to make an observation in passing. The foundation of the belief in an apostasy is free will or free agency. Put simply, God won't save us against our will or force us to be righteous. The foundation of Christ's New Testament church was apostles and prophets according to Ephesians 2:19-20. This foundation was destroyed with the martyrdom of the New Testament apostles (see Fox's Book of Martyrs).

It is one thing to contend that individuals, and perhaps even whole congregations might give themselves over to apostasy. However, the entire Christian world? The whole church...not one that stays true? Jesus said the gates of hell would never prevail against his church. And the grand span of the biblical account is one of a remnant of believers prevailing until conviction and repentence comes to the House of God. No, the belief in free will (or free agency) does not extend to a belief that the whole of creation would embrace apostasy for 1700+ years.

Now if God won't force anyone to be righteous, who would He call to be the foundation of the church? Absent a foundation, even the best-built structures collapse. This is an over-simplification. See James E. Talmage's excellent (and brief) book "The Great Apostasy" for insight into this most troubling of LDS beliefs.

I would argue that Christ is the rock, the foundation, upon which his church is built. Peter's confession was that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God--and it is upon this confession--this rock--that Christ builds his church. It wasn't about Peter, or the disciples, or who would be greatest in the Kingdom--it has always been about Jesus.

But the only way to know Jesus is to get direct revelation from Him, or by knowing who He has authorized to establish His church. And in case you don't know it, there have always been people to reject Him and ALL of His prophets.

For instance, who led the true church of Jesus Christ of the former day saints? Do you know? And what were they teaching for doctrine? And FYI, the "Bible" would not be a very good answer, because His church is not the church of THE BIBLE.

And even if the Bible were the best answer or the best thing to follow as members of our Lord's true church, how do you suppose we are all supposed to know which people truthfully interpret the Bible?

Heh, some of you people seem to have no real clue about what is really going on in this world.

[mdb]

Quotes are in blue because they are not coming up correctly in the preview. If they show correctly once posted, then I guess there will be blue text within a nice quote box.

Try reading Alma 40:15 again, beginning with the beginning of the chapter. Notice how Alma wrote, beginning with verse 1, that he had tried to understand this issue by seeking inspiration from God, as he talked or wrote to one of his sons about the separation of the spirit from the body, (which is the dissolution of the soul). Notice particularly verses 11-14, where Alma uses the word soul to refer to the state of the total person until the time of their resurrection,, and he further declares that he is giving his opinion in verse 20 while talking or writing to his son.

And btw, the scriptures are made up of the words of people as they wrote with inspiration from God, so we shouldn’t believe that all of the scriptures are the actual words of God… except where the prophets of God have actually written the actual words of God… as Joseph did in D&C 88:15.

Yes, the holy Scriptures were written by men, but ALL Scripture is given by ispiration of God. If it is Alma's opinion, then it's not the word of God, but the words of Alma. Is that what you're saying?

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

(2 Pet 1:19)

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Ti 3:16)

Our Lord actually meant that we should fear Him who is able to separate the spirit from its body, and the body from His spirit, in hell.

Yes He meant that as well and we should fear Him. The message to fear Him deos not nullify the clear depiction of the body and soul being two separate entities.

Again, a prophet of God speaks or writes using his own words to convey the ideas that are or were inspired by God, and here we have the apostle Paul using his own words to describe the complete person in his letter to the Thessalonians. And the words of the apostle Paul are not as perfect as the words used by our Lord.

They are not the prophet's words - they are the words of God. The Holy Scriptures are infallible and what Paul wrote down in His letters are perfect because they were given to him by inspiriation of God. If you think you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true - claiming that some are a matter of opinion (unless expressly stated within the text), you err.

The word “soul” was used by many prophets of God to refer to the complete persons we are, so any time our spirit bodies become separated from our physical bodies, or our spirit AND physical bodies both become separated from God, we can refer to that separation as the destruction or dissolution of our souls, which consist of our spirits and bodies.

Examples please.

Or in other words, John saw the persons who had been killed by having their physical bodies put in the condition where the spirit was compelled to leave, and the reason they were killed was because of their testimonies from God which assured them that Jesus was and is the Christ.

Bodies put in the condition... killed, or slain.

Yes, the reason they were killed was for their testimony of Jesus Christ, but it was still their souls, apart from their bodies, which John saw under the altar.

And btw, you and I and everyone else also need an assurance from God to assure us that Jesus was and is the Christ, as well as how to interpret His words and the words written by His prophets, and unless and until we actually receive our assurances from God we are only relying on the assurances of men (and women) like us.

As for me, my assurance comes from the holy Spirit who testifies of Jesus Christ.

“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. (Jn 15:26)

[Guest ApostleKnight]

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Ti 3:16)

LDS believe that Joseph Smith was inspired to re-translate the Bible (which was more of him receiving direct revelations from God, correcting errors in the Bible). You and I/Ray/others can't even agree on what the verses should say, let alone how to interpret them. The verse above should read: "And all Scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" (JST 2 Tim. 3:16).

See the difference between saying, "All scripture is given by inspiration," and, "And all scripture given by inspiration..." The first dictates the ridiculous view that the Bible is perfect and infallible (oooooh boy). The second dictates that scriptures that are inspired are valuable for lots of reasons, but not that every word in the scriptures IS inspired.

The Holy Scriptures are infallible ... [Paul's letters] are perfect because they were given to him by inspiriation of God.

Perhaps, but our translation of Paul's letters might not be perfect. Are you saying that the men who translated Paul's letters did so perfectly? Not many Christian historians/scholars would agree with you. Do you honestly believe that all the translations of the Bible--KJV, NIV, et al--are all "created equal," or are all perfect? Wow.

Yes, the reason they were killed was for their testimony of Jesus Christ, but it was still their souls, apart from their bodies, which John saw under the altar.

This is such a ridiculous argument. Let's settle it once and for all. There is a part of man's being that is not physical, a part that dwells inside him and leaves his physical body at death. Call it spirit or soul or whatever. There, are we done with that argument?

[Ray]

mdb: …the holy Scriptures were written by men, but ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. If it is Alma's opinion, then it's not the word of God, but the words of Alma. Is that what you're saying?

I’m saying that Alma was giving the opinion that God inspired Him to have, just like every other prophet of God spoke or wrote as they were inspired.

And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (2 Pet 1:19)

Yes, and those were the words of Peter as he was moved by the Holy Spirit. And regardless of your private interpretation of what Peter actually meant by his words, we can truthfully interpret them only with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Ti 3:16)

Yes, ALL scripture is very profitable for those purposes, as Paul was telling Timothy in his own words.

Ray: Our Lord actually meant that we should fear Him who is able to separate the spirit from its body, and the body from His spirit, in hell.

mdb: Yes He meant that as well and we should fear Him. The message to fear Him does not nullify the clear depiction of the body and soul being two separate entities.

Heh, I just told you they are two different “things”, although the soul does include the body.

Ray: Again, a prophet of God speaks or writes using his own words to convey the ideas that are or were inspired by God, and here we have the apostle Paul using his own words to describe the complete person in his letter to the Thessalonians. And the words of the apostle Paul are not as perfect as the words used by our Lord.

mdb: They are not the prophet's words - they are the words of God. The Holy Scriptures are infallible and what Paul wrote down in His letters are perfect because they were given to him by inspiration of God.

As you keep studying the Holy Bible you will hopefully see that each prophet has his own style of writing, and the words Paul chose to use expressed the thoughts he received as he was inspired with inspiration from God.

If you think you can pick and choose which parts of the Bible are true - claiming that some are a matter of opinion (unless expressly stated within the text), you err.

Says you. But I know from God and the inspiration He gives me that those words are true as long as I interpret them correctly.

Ray: The word “soul” was used by many prophets of God to refer to the complete persons we are, so any time our spirit bodies become separated from our physical bodies, or our spirit AND physical bodies both become separated from God, we can refer to that separation as the destruction or dissolution of our souls, which consist of our spirits and bodies.

mdb: Examples please.

I already gave you some by interpreting the scriptures you gave me, but if you want more, there are more to be found, at that link I gave you to our Topical Guide on the Soul.

Ray: Or in other words, John saw the persons who had been killed by having their physical bodies put in the condition where the spirit was compelled to leave, and the reason they were killed was because of their testimonies from God which assured them that Jesus was and is the Christ.

mdb: Bodies put in the condition... killed, or slain.

Yes, the reason they were killed was for their testimony of Jesus Christ, but it was still their souls, apart from their bodies, which John saw under the altar.

Says you, again. And while you can believe whatever you want to believe, I will get my inspiration from God.

Ray: And btw, you and I and everyone else also need an assurance from God to assure us that Jesus was and is the Christ, as well as how to interpret His words and the words written by His prophets, and unless and until we actually receive our assurances from God we are only relying on the assurances of men (and women) like us.

As for me, my assurance comes from the holy Spirit who testifies of Jesus Christ.

Heh, very interesting. So does mine. And yet we are not in agreement. So either one of us or possibly both of us only think our testimony is from God… otherwise God is telling us two different things that seem to conflict with each other... and my God is not a God of confusion.

“But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me. (Jn 15:26)

Yes, and just as the apostles received their testimony from God, you and I should also receive our testimony and assurances from God… and then not only will we know that Jesus is the Christ, but we will also know the truth of ALL things as they are made known to us by the power of the Holy Ghost.

[mdb]

Perhaps, but our translation of Paul's letters might not be perfect. Are you saying that the men who translated Paul's letters did so perfectly? Not many Christian historians/scholars would agree with you. Do you honestly believe that all the translations of the Bible--KJV, NIV, et al--are all "created equal," or are all perfect? Wow.

Very well... poor wording. I believe that the Bible we have today is an accurate translation of the infallible word of God, which was written in the original Hebrew and Greek on manuscripts that have been preserved to this time. I do not believe that all translations are correct and the men who added to, or took away from the words of God to support a bias doctrine or belief will be accountable for it. As an example: the NWT is a false translation, among others.

I have met Mormon missionaries who have said they have NIV bibles and/ or KJV,NKJV bibles. Do you believe the JST is the only correct translation? I thought that the LDS approved the KJV bible as one of the four works which make up the LDS Gospels?

JST bible

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

Yes, the reason they were killed was for their testimony of Jesus Christ, but it was still their souls, apart from their bodies, which John saw under the altar.

This is such a ridiculous argument. Let's settle it once and for all. There is a part of man's being that is not physical, a part that dwells inside him and leaves his physical body at death. Call it spirit or soul or whatever. There, are we done with that argument?

So you disagree with D&C 88:15 that says the soul is the physical body + spirit?

I agree that we have a spirit which survives physical death. The departing of a man's spirit does not dissolve the soul which I Scripturally proved earlier does survive the physical death of the body.

[Guest ApostleKnight]

Very well... poor wording. I believe that the Bible we have today is an accurate translation of the infallible word of God, which was written in the original Hebrew and Greek on manuscripts that have been preserved to this time.

I have to point out that there are no surviving original manuscripts of the writings in the Bible. We have copies of copies...of copies.

Do you believe the JST is the only correct translation? I thought that the LDS approved the KJV bible as one of the four works which make up the LDS Gospels?

The JST was never published by the LDS church as an official translation. One reason for this was the martyrdom of the prophet in 1844. Another reason was that his writings/papers relating to the translation were kept by the RLDS which split from the LDS church after Joseph's death. That said, there are snippets of the JST which appear in the LDS KJV, as footnotes or supplements. As far as those are in the official LDS canon, I believe they are the most perfect translation. The KJV is not perfect in every respect.

So you disagree with D&C 88:15 that says the soul is the physical body + spirit?

Nope, but since you won't accept those terms let's just agree that there's a part of man that survives the death of his physical body. I call it spirit, you call it spirit or soul...whatever. I'm not going to try to convince you to believe D&C 88:15 since a spiritual witness, not logic, ultimately is required for conviction.

The departing of a man's spirit does not dissolve the soul which I Scripturally proved earlier does survive the physical death of the body.

My friend, you proved nothing earlier except that your scriptural interpretation differs from ours.