Is the Spirit World on Earth?

[Vort]

Joseph F. Smith had this to say about reincarnation,

"Now can it be supposed that these particles were inactive and dormant from all eternity until the received their organization in the form of the infant spirit?…If they were once organized in the vegetable kingdom, and then disorganized by becoming food of celestial animal, and then again re-organized in the form of the spirits of animals, which is a higher sphere or being, then, is it unreasonable to suppose that the particles have, from all eternity, being passed through an endless chain of unions and disunions, organizations and disorganizations, until at length they are permitted to enter into the highest and most exalted sphere of organization in the image and likeness of God?"

President Smith was not speaking of reincarnation. He was pursuing a theory of his that classified "intelligence" as a substance from which spirits were created. Positing this, he extended it to the idea that matter itself undergoes a refining process, from coarse and telestial to refined and celestial.

This is not and never was LDS doctrine, though it was influential among some. For example, Joseph F. Smith's same-named son wholeheartedly embraced this idea, as did Joseph Fielding Smith's son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie. If you read Mormon Doctrine, McConkie talks about "spirit element" and defines it as synonymous with intelligence. So the idea continues to survive in some LDS circles.

In any case, the point is that he was not speaking of reincarnation.

[dirtydevil]

Reincarnation research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I beleive in evolution and reincarnation may exist. Both beleifs are the result of observation. Reincarnation has been tested to a point that skeptical scientists that have personally done the research using the scientific method concluded that reincarnation more likely exists than not exist, after previously not beleiving in it at all.

[Traveler]

President Smith was not speaking of reincarnation. He was pursuing a theory of his that classified "intelligence" as a substance from which spirits were created. Positing this, he extended it to the idea that matter itself undergoes a refining process, from coarse and telestial to refined and celestial.

This is not and never was LDS doctrine, though it was influential among some. For example, Joseph F. Smith's same-named son wholeheartedly embraced this idea, as did Joseph Fielding Smith's son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie. If you read Mormon Doctrine, McConkie talks about "spirit element" and defines it as synonymous with intelligence. So the idea continues to survive in some LDS circles.

In any case, the point is that he was not speaking of reincarnation.

Very excellent post Vort! By definition intelligence learns and by learning evolves. Science in the deepest confines of current understanding is grappling with the concept that nothing is constant and that change is inevitable. The question is - what is possible and what is probable?

Since it has never been proven that at some threshold that which exist cannot also be made to exist - it is a foolish notion to align to a notion that G-d is not probable when intelligence and learning is deemed possible.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Reincarnation research - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

I beleive in evolution and reincarnation may exist. Both beleifs are the result of observation. Reincarnation has been tested to a point that skeptical scientists that have personally done the research using the scientific method concluded that reincarnation more likely exists than not exist, after previously not beleiving in it at all.

As an engineer and scientist I look at the link - even the link says very clearly there is no proof (meaning no plausible evidence) that reincarnation exists.

The Traveler

[dirtydevil]

About scientific research on reincarnation showing some of the first hand research being conducted

YouTube

I dont think that some type of god is any less probable than we are. I don't know how likely that it would be that this god has always been a male homo Sapien existing throughout all of time though. To me, maybe god is the combined interaction of everything known and unknown recorded in the fabric of the cosmos.

[dirtydevil]

I know there is no proof, I only beleive that it may exist. Just as you beleive that your religious concepts may exist.

[dirtydevil]

What science do you specialize in travellor?

[Traveler]

What science do you specialize in travellor?

Math and physics is my training - I work in industry (as a consultant) for automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.

In your studies of Buddhism have you read the contemporary Ken Wilber?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

I know there is no proof, I only beleive that it may exist. Just as you beleive that your religious concepts may exist.

It is one thing to think something possible - something else to conclude that it is the most probable of all possibilities.

The Traveler

[dirtydevil]

Do you not beleive that your religious beleifs is the most probable of all pissibilities?

[dirtydevil]

Possibilities....oops

[dirtydevil]

I havent read ken wilbur

[Traveler]

Do you not beleive that your religious beleifs is the most probable of all pissibilities?

Yes - considering the advances in science in the last 100 years or so in relativity, special relativity and quantum physics and in the last 20 years: dark matter, dark energy and particle physics (Higgs Boson) have significantly limited most all others. Or according to Steven Hawkins - the concepts of the supernatural have been proven to be not necessary and therefore not likely or the most probable.

The Traveler

[dirtydevil]

I must be of very limited intelligence compared to you. I saw on you profile your religious beleifs and in my limited knowledge it appears to me that you beleive in the supernatural as well. How do those scientific advances prove your versions of beleif over others, say Pantheists or Panentheists for example.

[dirtydevil]

How does these scientific advances prove your religion over that of lets say... a humanist that is agnostic or atheistic. Note that you dont need to beleive in a deity in order to beleive in a first cause to the universe, or lack thereof.

[Vort]

How does these scientific advances prove your religion over that of lets say... a humanist that is agnostic or atheistic. Note that you dont need to beleive in a deity in order to beleive in a first cause to the universe, or lack thereof.

Religion is not proven by science. Science is a human discipline, like politics or economics. Religion is proven, if it is proven at all, by the Spirit of God. Ultimately, there is no other proof.

[Traveler]

How does these scientific advances prove your religion over that of lets say... a humanist that is agnostic or atheistic. Note that you dont need to beleive in a deity in order to beleive in a first cause to the universe, or lack thereof.

Where to start?

First off: The humanistic approach demonstrates that the supernatural is what is not necessary. The LDS approach has always been that G-d operates the universe within the range of “natural” laws or the laws of physics. That G-d operates not as a supernatural influence but with advanced (to us) understanding of such laws.

Second. The very principle by which agnostics argue that our universe can exist as a highly “balanced” and extremely intricately complex system is that anything that is possible - regardless of the possibility ratio can exist based on random possibilities. But we also know that anything that is possible can also be intelligently replicated based on the random possibilities that allowed the possibility to exist in the first place - therefore being intelligently manipulated. In short - anything that is possible can be replicated by creating or duplicating the initial (and other needed) parameters.

Third: The understanding of evolution is that anything that is possible, will; given sufficient opportunity, evolve. In essence this guarantees that evolution is unbounded. Thus if a universe is possible - unbounded evolution will eventually evolve intelligent understanding and knowledge of creation parameters proving that a divine creator or an advanced intelligent creator is possible. So in essence by the same principles that we deem the universe naturally possible without supernatural influence - we must also conclude that a superior intelligent creator is also possible and as likely as the existence of the universe itself. Therefore, even if we start with the assumption that a LDS G-d operating within the laws of physics does not exist - you must accept that such an intelligent G-d will eventually exist.

Therefore, if such an intelligent G-d must exist as a possibility - then the probability that he already exist is a foregone conclusion. Since G-d is therefore a foregone conclusion the only way to intelligently or rhetorically logical way to argue that G-d does not exist is to concussively prove that such a being does not exist. But that argument has already been proven to be impossible to prove. So as Spock once said on a Star Trek episode - once all other possibilities have logically eliminated - that which remains must be the best logical conclusion.

If you want to argue that such intelligence is not possible or probable - know that you must do so within the framework that the universe most likely exists within the laws of physics (and evolution). And let us together see where that will get us.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Religion is not proven by science. Science is a human discipline, like politics or economics. Religion is proven, if it is proven at all, by the Spirit of God. Ultimately, there is no other proof.

I am not sure I would argue that science is a discipline like politics or economics - or in many cases - religion. I would argue that the LDS basis of religious understanding is not based on perceived or believed ideas (the bases of human structured religion) but divine revelation.

But getting back to the points of politics and economic - which are based - not on discipline but in reality mass perceptions. Therefore the value of economic ratios (or political ideals) is according to what is perceived and will vary according to such perceptions. Whereas scientific principles exist regardless of whatever class perceives or does not perceive them. For example - gravity operates the same regardless if a society believes it to be so or not.

The Traveler

[Vort]

But getting back to the points of politics and economic - which are based - not on discipline but in reality mass perceptions. Therefore the value of economic ratios (or political ideals) is according to what is perceived and will vary according to such perceptions.

Which is precisely the case with science, an endeavor very prone to fads and cliquishness.

Whereas scientific principles exist regardless of whatever class perceives or does not perceive them. For example - gravity operates the same regardless if a society believes it to be so or not.

Not so. The luminiferous ether is a scientific principle that doesn't operate, no matter how much people do or do not believe it. Same with Newtonian principles at near-light speed or quantum mechanical scale.

[THIRDpersonviewer]

Which is precisely the case with science, an endeavor very prone to fads and cliquishness.

Not so. The luminiferous ether is a scientific principle that doesn't operate, no matter how much people do or do not believe it. Same with Newtonian principles at near-light speed or quantum mechanical scale.

Your newtonian principles example is an example of a perception of the laws of nature. We undersatnd gravity to work following an equation v^2=V0^2+2ax(others as well but this one is simple to type). Like you said it is at high altitudes(way in outer space) this equation breaks down or at very very small distances(quantum level), as well as near speed of light.

That is why New theories and hpotheses have been developed or are in process of being developed. Science grows and changes because current science is only a current understanding with a method to gain more understanding closer to the truth.

Your comment that scientific principles change, is just because we do not understand everything and as we grow then we find true principles that do not change.

I am not familiar with economics, but a little politics I am. politics changes based on changes with time, location and other factors. At the end of the day there is no set strategy that will always win.

History of a video game. Age of Empires when originally played online there was strategy A that worked to win. That was countered with strategy B, which was countered with strategy C. Strategy A was a counter to C. So it goes in a circle and the strategies have success based on the situation. Not by any constant principle such as truth.

Science in the purest form possible, which we will never know in this life, operates as a constant. You will always be able to rely on it just as we rely on the truths of the Gospel. We do not worry that the principles change.

Forgive me if this is a little scatter brain or doesnt make sense. I am really tired right now.

[Blackmarch]

Or is it on other planets or in a different realm? Same question, but as it applies to the different degrees in Heaven. (both from a doctrinal standpoint, and individual beleifs)

There isn't any official ruling on that as far as i know. However there are occasional mentions by prophets and various leaders that would indicate that it is on earth, or in part on earth.

[Traveler]

Which is precisely the case with science, an endeavor very prone to fads and cliquishness.

Not so. The luminiferous ether is a scientific principle that doesn't operate, no matter how much people do or do not believe it. Same with Newtonian principles at near-light speed or quantum mechanical scale.

Part of your problem with science is the difference between physics and theoretical physics; luminiferous aether (and relative near light projection) is theoretical physics that remains unproven as are (much of but not all of) the concepts of dark energy and dark matter.

Scientific principles are "isotropic" to our universe and are independent of mass human interpretation. This corresponds to revelation given through the D&C that are more dependent on the culture of Newtonian Physics through which such revelations were given. An interesting example of scientific principles being isotropic is demonstrated in comparisons of Abraham 3 with D&C 88 - one of which is revealed under the light of Newtonian Physics and the other under Ancient Egyptian Pythagorean Physics.

If we are to compare economics we will find that economic principles of values of commodities and services (the basic structure of economy) is entirely dependent on their perceived values and that actual (isotropic) values do not exist. Likewise with politics - laws are based on cultural morals of mass perceptions not isotropic principles. Thus we understand that the laws which govern Celestial individuals are quite different than the laws concerning the damned society of "outer darkness".

The Traveler

Edited January 21, 2013 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Do you think that god has bestowed on animals in heaven to procreate? Maybe they cant, but that would seem quite unnatural to me. So if God did bestow the gift of procreation to animals, it would seem that he might also bestow that gift to humans that live somewhat more like animals. Especially, considering that most humans (in my opinion) are more self sacraficing than other animals, even if they were not counted worthy of exaltation.

We essentially (maybe speaking more for myself but this is how I interpret what is taught) believe that this life is the unnatural one. Here we are in a unique probationary state where we are dual beings, both body and spirit that was never intended to be a permanent situation. It is like when a student take a test, the books are put away, the chalkboard is covered or erased etc., the situation is different than the classroom was before. So, to call this life "natural" does not mean that is how our more long-lasting situation is supposed to be, but it is very similar. The power to procreate is part of the given probationary tests. ... just keep that in mind.

Also, this body is corrupted. Part of that corruption could certainly be sexual drives and interests. That was a tough probationary test for David, for example. Extrapolating what is children of God (spirit self) behavior from what is "human" is not easy for us. Many take personality traits etc to be their self when it may or may not be. It may just be part of the test. Sometimes the effects of the corrupted body are more outwardly obvious than others but is not a reflection of the spirit being inside, for example when a person with Tourrete's makes a rude gesture in public, or a person with severe mental retardation masturbates in public. I don't think anyone would go so far as to say that is their spiritual self. The issue is that we all have corrupted bodies here, in various and numerous ways.

In the next life even the matter around us changes so it is difficult to directly relate it to the things we understand about "human" behavior and "nature". That would make it so even the anatomy of "humans" and animals likely is different than what we currently know (even if it is the same appearance - image).

[Vort]

Part of your problem with science is the difference between physics and theoretical physics; luminiferous aether (and relative near light projection) is theoretical physics that remains unproven as are (much of but not all of) the concepts of dark energy and dark matter.

No, it doesn't remain unproven. It has been disproven. And that is my point; physics, like all science, is not about "finding truth". It's about making and refining models. The core truth is assumed a priori to be unknowable.

Scientific principles are "isotropic" to our universe

This is not a settled matter. It is an assumption that has held up pretty well; for example, Einstein's work is ultimately largely based on this idea. But it has not been proven, and indeed cannot be proven, to hold for all areas of the universe. Furthermore, the prevailing forces vary so widely based on scale (e.g. at the small scale, atomic forces dominate, while at the large scale gravitation dominates) that in effect it is false, or at least not useful for making usable approximations.

and are independent of mass human interpretation.

This is clearly incorrect. When a stone is flying through the air in a ballistic trajectory, it is not constantly calculating its position based on some equation or factoring in air resistance or minor gravitational variations. It simply goes. All that other stuff, that math and language and description that make up physics, is all purely for our benefit so that we can understand it. It's merely a model of reality. It is a human endeavor. There is nothing "natural" about physics or math or chemistry or such things.

To say otherwise, that physics is the way nature operates, is the same as saying that God is what we say he is. This is exactly what atheists believe, of course, but it is not what we believe. God exists independently of what we believe about him. We can't just change our beliefs about him and thereby change him. Deciding that God is benevolent and therefore won't condemn us for living in our sins doesn't actually change God's nature at all; it just perverts our understanding of that nature. In the same way, defining physics to be a certain way does not change the nature of, well, nature. It just modifies, for better or worse, our understanding of nature.

[pam]

My..I am so lost in this conversation.