Spirit Matter

[Seminarysnoozer]

I do not believe that any truth can come to man except through G-d (Holy Ghost) -- if it come by any other means there is in it a lie.

All truth comes through the Holy Ghost (G-d). Again what ever someone learns except through the Holy Ghost is a lie.

See Moroni 10:5 and Moses 6:52

I am trying very hard to get the just of your thought but I believe that the principle for the discovery of truth, as I understand, is seeking and searching and then it comes through the Holy Ghost - What I do not see is the great difference you speak of between that which is physical and that which is spiritual. The principles of obtaining truth look the same to me???

The Traveler

I know you believe that way.

If Osama Bin Laden taught his son truths about physics, then he taught by the power of the Holy Ghost?

If Cain teaches his son about fire, it is a lie? Or teaches his son how to raise crops, it is a lie? Or did he teach through the power of the Holy Ghost?

When a baby learns how to suckle, that was the Holy Ghost?

Moroni 10:5 and Moses 6:52 tell us how to have all the truth, which of course includes spiritual truths. Moses 6 says "asking all things" which does not mean "everything". " 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things."

That doesn't exclude the possibility of knowing some things because what those scriptures are saying is that if you want to know the truth of all things it can only be done by the Holy Ghost because there are things that are only known by the spirit. The part that is known by the physical can be done by the physical body. But having knowledge of the physical alone is not "all" the truth.

If I am wrong, fine, tell me the exact statement that says if someone learns something with their mind and not through the spirit that it is a lie. Where does it say that.

[mordorbund]

What the first premise argues is that everything demands an explanation for its existence. In the end, an explanation will either be in the necessity of its own nature or the explanation will be in some transcendent cause.

I read the "necessity of its own nature" to mean that there's some utility to gain from its existence. But the way you list the alternative, it sounds like what you are trying to say is that everything that exists is either caused or uncaused. Am I reading you wrong about the utility aspect? Or do you posit that anything "uncreated" performs some function?

This premise [2] is not about length of existence but rather the explanation for existence. Either the universe just exists necessarily or it has some external cause. I am arguing that the universe doesn't exist necessarily, thus must have an external cause.

I'm not talking about length of existence either. I only mention to show that some models that take into account the big bang still include an eternal, self-existing universe.

The problem with the universe existing of necessity is that, according to the standard model of subatomic physics, matter itself is composed of tiny fundamental particles that cannot be further broken down. The universe is just the collection of all these particles arranged in different ways. But now the question arises: Couldn’t a different collection of fundamental particles have existed instead of this one? Does each and every one of these particles exist necessarily? Notice what the one cannot say at this point. One cannot say that the elementary particles are just configurations of matter which that could have been different, but that the matter of which the particles are composed exists necessarily. One can’t say this, because elementary particles aren’t composed of anything. They just are the basic units of matter. So if a particular particle doesn’t exist, the matter doesn’t exist. Now it seems obvious that a different collection of fundamental particles could have existed instead of the collection that does exist. But if that were the case, then a different universe would have existed. To see the point, think about your desk. Could your desk have been made of ice? Notice that I’m not asking if you could have had an ice desk in the place of your wooden desk that had the same size and shape. Rather I’m asking if your very desk, the one made of wood, if that desk could have been made of ice. The answer seems to be obviously, no. The ice desk would be a different desk, not the same desk. Similarly, a universe made up of different particles, even if they were identically arranged as in this universe, would be a different universe. It follows, then, that the universe does not exist by a necessity of its own nature.

Thanks for the clarification. This additional information fleshes out some of the logical leaps you hazarded earlier. Now, here's a counter-argument: Each of these particles must exist - and, what's more, they must exist in this particular configuration. As evidence of this - they do. Perhaps I'm missing something, but conceptualizing what happens if the universe had different laws or properties does nothing to destroy its eternal nature.

Shall we apply the same principles to your mind-God? The problem with God existing of necessity is that, according to the standard model of <anything>, .... and now we've defined God. Having defined the "mind", we'll find that there's a number of definitions we discarded along the way because it doesn't comport with either of our understandings of God. Which means those are Gods (universe) that don't follow the same self-existence of the God (universe) we have before us. Pull the universe out of the self-existent bucket because "change it and it's different" and you'll find a barrel of monkeys pulling God out of the same pail.

Think of what the universe is: all of space-time reality, including all matter and energy. It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause must be a nonphysical, immaterial being beyond space and time. Now there are only two sorts of things that could fit that description: either an abstract object like a number or else an unembodied mind. But abstract objects can’t cause anything. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 7, for example, can’t cause any effects. So the cause of the existence of the universe must be a transcendent Mind, which is what Christians have traditionally understood God to be. The donkey wont do since it cant be composed of elements and not exist in space at the same time.

This definition of the universe is quite dated. Back in the 70's Carl Sagan popularized the notion of a Cosmos - a collection of universes, each self-contained with no connection to each other (unless you want to listen to the black hole/sci-fi crowd), of which ours is only one. Frankly, the Cosmos sounds like a construct created primarily so we could comfortably explore different laws of the universe without having to commit them to ours - but be that as it may, the notion still exists of other space-time realities, including other matter and energy outside of our universe. That leads us to the possibility of a universe created by physical, material being, existing in space and time (although not our space and time).

Both yourself and Anddenex believe that Joseph Smith differentiated between Spirit and Physical. But what I see when I read is that Smith rather differentiated between Phyisical-Spirit and Physical-Flesh&Bone.

This is evident from D&C 131:7 where it says "all spirit is matter". Matter by definition is "physical" (Oxford Online Dictionaries) Thus D&C 131:7 basically says "all spirit is [physical]".

Also Parley P. Pratt when speaking on Intelligences notes: "They are made of the element which we call spirit, which is as much an element of material existence, as earth, air, electricity, or any other tangible substance recognized by man; but so subtle, so refined is its nature, that it is not tangible to our gross organs."

Agreed, if such Spirit matter exists. The point was to do with the brain etc. Of course I accept that I cannot falsify Spirit matter which can never be detected.

I don't know if this is what you've been trying to say all along. I agree that spirit being material matter would mean that it is "physical" under a limited definition (you'll see in LDS parlance that we usually reserve the term physical for the tangible, or temporal aspects of our mortal experience). Undoubtedly, there are some "physical" properties of spirit matter that could presumably be measured - even if only by the "light of Christ" or some equally meaningless means for a physicist who only deals with the empirical.

Edited May 18, 2013 by mordorbund

[justinc]

Let me understand exactly what you are saying - are you making a claim that no one actually saw or sensed the resurrected Jesus with their physical eyes or physical senses?

No. The Book of Mormon witnesses, I understand, described seeing the plates with spiritual eyes. Anddenex claims that spiritual is not physical. Thus, on his view, the plates were not seen with physical eyes by the Witnesses.

[Vort]

No. The Book of Mormon witnesses, I understand, described seeing the plates with spiritual eyes. Anddenex claims that spiritual is not physical. Thus, on his view, the plates were not seen with physical eyes by the Witnesses.

You are speaking from a position of deep ignorance. It's clear you have no idea what is meant by "spiritual eyes". Here is a helpful hint: It does not mean that you didn't really see things with your own eyes.

[justinc]

I understand how you would define such, however, as Mordorbund shared we don't know if the physical and spiritual share the same properties. It is unknown.

As I understand Mordorbund, he does believe that spiritual is physical-material in the sense that it is fine and pure.

Oxford, provides a definition from their understanding of nature and the universe. The "more fine and pure-physically" in relation to "normal matter-physically" appears redundant still, both are physical within your interpretation, no matter the adjective which modifies the noun -- it is still physical; thus, the scripture still reads, according to your view in relation to the oxford dictionary "created all thing [physically] before they were [physically]."

Now who's caught up on one verse! :) Agreed, both are physical in my reading of D&C. What you are doing is failing to distinguish between fine matter and normal matter which D&C 131:7 points out. "All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure" Matter is just matter. Spirit matter is more fine or pure. The definition of matter is PHYSICAL. Thus within the verse I would not say:

"created all thing [physically] before they were [physically]."

Rather I would distinguish between Spirit (fine & pure) and normal Matter. (Which you are failing to differentiate) I would want to say something more like.

"God created all things in spiritual-matter form before they were created as what we regard as normal matter."

To paraphrase the above even more:

"God created all things in spiritual-physical (more fine & pure than normal-physical matter) form before they were created as normal-physical matter."

[justinc]

I am concerned that you think G-d must tweak his own principles and laws that he created in order to accomplish his purposes.

Do you believe then that Jesus rose naturally from the dead? How would you support this view in Science (the study of nature)? Or do you just believe in a 'science of the gaps'?

How do you define a hypocrite?

"behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs" Oxford Online Dictionary

A magician is all about deception and illusion. The G-d I worship is a G-d of truth and not illusion.

How is God acting sovereign over the laws of nature themselves an illusion? It could very well be the TRUTH.

[justinc]

I read the "necessity of its own nature" to mean that there's some utility to gain from its existence. But the way you list the alternative, it sounds like what you are trying to say is that everything that exists is either caused or uncaused. Am I reading you wrong about the utility aspect? Or do you posit that anything "uncreated" performs some function?

The first premise is that everything that exists has an explanation for existing. Either something else caused it to exist or else it must exist.

I'm not talking about length of existence either. I only mention to show that some models that take into account the big bang still include an eternal, self-existing universe.

That would be something one might look at in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In 2003 it was proven that the universe must have an absolute beginning. I talked about this earlier. This however is not relevant to this particular argument.

here's a counter-argument: Each of these particles must exist - and, what's more, they must exist in this particular configuration. As evidence of this - they do.

Your objection to Premise 2 here is to say that the universe just exists because it must exist. As evidence for this you say it just does. This is a bold assertion which you give no reasons for. It is easy to conceive that the universe might have existed with some other configuration. So rather then saying the universe must exist in this way because it just does, you must give some explanation why it must exist in this way. It's possible that your right but you must give reasons rather then saying "they [just] do" exist in this configuration. Even atheists are not eager to embrace the idea that the universe exists necessarily. Thus Premise 2 seems more plausibly true then its negation leaving it as good grounds that the Universe has some external cause.

Shall we apply the same principles to your mind-God? The problem with God existing of necessity is that, according to the standard model of <anything>, .... and now we've defined God. Having defined the "mind", we'll find that there's a number of definitions we discarded along the way because it doesn't comport with either of our understandings of God. Which means those are Gods (universe) that don't follow the same self-existence of the God (universe) we have before us. Pull the universe out of the self-existent bucket because "change it and it's different" and you'll find a barrel of monkeys pulling God out of the same pail.

You'll have to clarify this one for me. :)

This definition of the universe is quite dated.

"all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos" Oxford Online Dictionaries

The notion of a multi-verse has no evidence, rather it is postulated as a way of explaining the complexity of life.

I agree that spirit being material matter would mean that it is "physical" under a limited definition (you'll see in LDS parlance that we usually reserve the term physical for the tangible, or temporal aspects of our mortal experience). Undoubtedly, there are some "physical" properties of spirit matter

Yes, contemporary Latter-day Saints have talked as though there is a difference between spiritual and physical. What I'm saying is that it doesn't appear Smith thought the same. Rather spirit had finer matter etc.

[Anddenex]

Now who's caught up on one verse! :) Agreed, both are physical in my reading of D&C. What you are doing is failing to distinguish between fine matter and normal matter which D&C 131:7 points out. "All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure" Matter is just matter. Spirit matter is more fine or pure. The definition of matter is PHYSICAL. Thus within the verse I would not say:

I am not caught up on one verse in the least. I have actually shared with you the connection of two other verses to seek to help your understanding.

I am not failing in the least, but again do find it humorous when a non-member seeks to tell me what the verse actually means and what I am failing at.

[Finrock]

Good evening justinc. I hope you are well. Excuse any errors please as I am typing on my tablet screen.

Will you please succintly and clearly state your position? What is it that you are contending?

Thank you,

Finrock

[justinc]

You are speaking from a position of deep ignorance. It's clear you have no idea what is meant by "spiritual eyes". Here is a helpful hint: It does not mean that you didn't really see things with your own eyes.

I was making a statement based on Anddenex's personal understanding of what spirit matter actually is.

You obviously ignored the context and outline of the conversation. Please next time don't make assumptions and then assert my ignorance.

[justinc]

Good evening justinc. I hope you are well. Excuse any errors please as I am typing on my tablet screen.

Will you please succintly and clearly state your position? What is it that you are contending?

Thank you,

Finrock

There's about ten lines of conversation happening at the moment. If your really interested try reading afew pages back or so. We seem to have deviated from the OP which is almost always the case. :)

[Seminarysnoozer]

I don't know if this is what you've been trying to say all along. I agree that spirit being material matter would mean that it is "physical" under a limited definition (you'll see in LSD parlance that we usually reserve the term physical for the tangible, or temporal aspects of our mortal experience). Undoubtedly, there are some "physical" properties of spirit matter that could presumably be measured - even if only by the "light of Christ" or some equally meaningless means for a physicist who only deals with the empirical.

Yes, I think this is where even LDS get hung up on the idea that because spirit is made up of some "matter" that it must be measurable by scientific means.

I think we have to, at least, suggest that the properties of 'fine matter' are different from 'course matter' so much so that one cannot detect 'fine matter' through 'course matter' means. Just because I can hear doesn't mean that I can hear the voice of someone who lived 100 years ago without a recording of some kind. There has to be some intermediary to allow me to hear that voice. We don't know how spirit matter interacts with the physical body. But we know that it is a limited or controlled connection, at least in this life because in order for the physical (the brain) to influence the spirit, it has to be allowed.

If a person has Tourette's and yells out a cuss word (a physical brain function) I don't think it mars the spirit necessarily. Or if the brain creates a dream about an affair, has the spirit been marred by that action? If a person takes it to heart (meaning driven by the spirit) then it becomes a sin. If I get hungry during fast Sunday, is that the spirit or the physical body? I think it is important to realize that there has to be a separation of the two entities in this life, otherwise we would be responsible for every passing thought as if that was what was in our heart. There is a difference. And the connection in this life is a loose one unless we actively make the spirit more in control which is what the gospel does.

[Traveler]

Do you believe then that Jesus rose naturally from the dead? How would you support this view in Science (the study of nature)? Or do you just believe in a 'science of the gaps'?

I do not believe that there is anything unnatural about Jesus rising from the dead. Not even one principle of law that G-d has established or ever will establish. I believe that Jesus rising from death or the grave was planned to every precise detail before the "foundations of the earth" were made and that all things were carefully aligned and put into place that it would have been "naturally" impossible for Jesus to not have risen. It was and is as natural as the sun rising in the morning. It is also "natural" for a light bulb to give off light when turned on to do so - there is no principle or law of nature violated for a light bulb to give off light - But from your argument (that makes no sense to me) --- If it is truly natural; where is the light bulb that naturally occurs without some creator (man) having made it - naturally giving off light.

"behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs" Oxford Online Dictionary

Do you believe G-d is a hypocrite?

How is God acting sovereign over the laws of nature themselves an illusion? It could very well be the TRUTH.

I will quote my very wise brother in this regard. "What a person does is the results of the laws and principles by which they are governed - if and whenever they make an exception -- that becomes the new law or principle by which thy are governed."

The scriptures and Jesus clearly teach that the only means to be one with G-d is by "keeping" his commandments. Anyone that teaches anything contrary to keeping the commandments (principles and laws by which we exist) is a liar and there is no truth in their teachings. If G-d did not always keep his own laws principles and commandments then we would not be one with him if we kept the commandments. The question is if G-d lives by his own principles and laws he has created. If G-d is not a consistent being such that in realty G-d must violate his own laws and principles to accomplish his purposes; then he is a being that is subject to circumstance. I simply do not believe in a G-d that is subject to or changes because of circumstance.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

No. The Book of Mormon witnesses, I understand, described seeing the plates with spiritual eyes. Anddenex claims that spiritual is not physical. Thus, on his view, the plates were not seen with physical eyes by the Witnesses.

I would suggest that you obtain a copy of the Book of Mormon and read the published witness given. Hopefully that will clear things up that we may all proceed on the same page - pun intended.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

I was making a statement based on Anddenex's personal understanding of what spirit matter actually is.

You obviously ignored the context and outline of the conversation. Please next time don't make assumptions and then assert my ignorance.

You mean similar to this assumption, "Anddenex claims that spiritual is not physical. Thus, on his view, the plates were not seen with physical eyes by the Witnesses," regarding my view?

Emphasis is mine.

[Vort]

I was making a statement based on Anddenex's personal understanding of what spirit matter actually is.

You obviously ignored the context and outline of the conversation. Please next time don't make assumptions and then assert my ignorance.

This would be fine, except that you made an assumption based on Anddenex's use of the terms. You seem to have little clear idea what is meant by "spiritual eyes", so your logical leap that "spiritual" != "physical" implied "spiritual eyes" != "physical sight" does not hold up.

[justinc]

I .. do find it humorous when a non-member seeks to tell me what the verse actually means

Someone need not be a Latter-day Saint to interpret the Standard Works. Non-members are regularly encouraged to read the Standard Works.

Edited May 18, 2013 by justinc

[justinc]

I do not believe that there is anything unnatural about Jesus rising from the dead.

By which natural law did Jesus come back from the dead? Your making the claim that it can happen Scientifically, what evidence is there that such is possible?

Do you believe G-d is a hypocrite?

I would say God is not a hypocrite.

Hypocritical: "behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case"

Hypocrisy: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case"

I would say God is not "claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case" rather God does actually have "higher standards and more noble beliefs".

If G-d did not always keep his own laws principles and commandments then we would not be one with him if we kept the commandments. The question is if G-d lives by his own principles and laws he has created.

Have to agree to disagree on this one since you believe God is subject to and uses science whereas I believe God created science and laws.

I simply do not believe in a G-d that is subject to or changes because of circumstance.

On your view, When Polygamy became illegal did God not change his mind about polygamy due to circumstance?

[justinc]

You mean similar to this assumption, "Anddenex claims that spiritual is not physical. Thus, on his view, the plates were not seen with physical eyes by the Witnesses," regarding my view?

Emphasis is mine.

Please clarify your position. Do you believe the spiritual and physical are the same thing? If not, when someone says they see something with "spiritual eyes" they do not necessarily mean "physical eyes", right?

Edited May 18, 2013 by justinc

[mordorbund]

The first premise is that everything that exists has an explanation for existing. Either something else caused it to exist or else it must exist.

I feel like you've restated your case with synonyms, but not with explanations. Are you simply saying everything that exists is either created or uncreated? Are you saying that the minimum bar for the created to exist is some purpose of the created (there may certainly be other reasons, but you only need that one) while the minimum bar for an uncreate to exist is simply to create? Or is there some other function that can be performed by the uncreated (it doesn't create, but it performs the really useful function of transition, or sustaining, or something)? Or are you saying that the uncreate is uncreated because that falls in the very nature of the uncreate in question? Are you saying that we start with the assumption that something is uncreated, but if that's proven false then we assume an uncreated creator ("uncreate must exist, otherwise the created could not")?

This will help me understand the rest of your arguments better.

That would be something one might look at in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In 2003 it was proven that the universe must have an absolute beginning. I talked about this earlier. This however is not relevant to this particular argument.

Nor is Argument well established. I'm not familiar with the 2003 study you reference, perhaps you'd like to share a link?

Your objection to Premise 2 here is to say that the universe just exists because it must exist. As evidence for this you say it just does. This is a bold assertion which you give no reasons for. It is easy to conceive that the universe might have existed with some other configuration. So rather then saying the universe must exist in this way because it just does, you must give some explanation why it must exist in this way. It's possible that your right but you must give reasons rather then saying "they [just] do" exist in this configuration. Even atheists are not eager to embrace the idea that the universe exists necessarily. Thus Premise 2 seems more plausibly true then its negation leaving it as good grounds that the Universe has some external cause.

And the reason why atheists are reluctant to this kind of logic is because the same can be applied to a God, which must exist because it is in his nature and because, frankly, he does.

You'll have to clarify this one for me. :)

This is why I asked for clarification with your first premise. Your confusion over this suggests that perhaps you weren't saying what I thought you were saying.

[qutoe]"all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos" Oxford Online Dictionaries

The notion of a multi-verse has no evidence, rather it is postulated as a way of explaining the complexity of life.

Nor is there evidence of an uncreate mind which creates. Yet here we are peering outside the universe for answers and arbitrarily accepting one and rejecting the other.

Yes, contemporary Latter-day Saints have talked as though there is a difference between spiritual and physical. What I'm saying is that it doesn't appear Smith thought the same. Rather spirit had finer matter etc.

As a fan of the Oxford Dictionary, I'm sure you're quite familiar with overloaded terms that have multiple meanings. Both 'physical' are 'spiritual' are among these. For what it's worth, you will only find the term 'physical' in the standard works once, and it has nothing to do with physics, or matter. Rather it is used to contrast acceptable faith disciplines from that which is beyond the pale (many (myself included) would say that having the Holy Ghost withdraw is a spiritual punishment (I would even go so far as to say that this is probably an "infliction" on "finer matter") and would still agree with the scripture that such is not a "physical punishment". I don't know if you would count yourself among such.

A further search through the D&C specifically give us some good synonyms of "physical" that matches the modern parlance and not so much that of the physicist who studied the natural sciences in day of yore. Keeping in mind what I mentioned before about overloaded terms, you can search out uses of "element" and "flesh". You can even do a search for "body" to see the contrast between the spirit (body) and the (physical) body. That there is a difference is apparent readily enough. This difference is what we're generally referring to (which you've acknowledged). Surely from these example you can see that Joseph viewed spirit as something different from the physical in the way we use these terms today.

As I pointed out earlier, so long as you limit your definition of "physical" to mean "composing of a form of matter" (and here I would include energy as a "form" since they are interchangeable) then you won't find much disagreement. I think your earlier posts weren't terribly clear on that and that's why you've met so much resistance. Additionally, I for one (and it sounds like SeminarySnoozer) am reluctant to bind myself to the implications of "spirit is matter" doctrine because there is so little that is known about what that actually means (from my reading, there is about 2 paragraphs that mention this in passing about discernment).

If I haven't said it already, welcome to the boards.

[justinc]

Are you simply saying everything that exists is either created or uncreated?

The first premise is making two statements.

1) Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence. - That is to say everything that exists has some reason or justification, some answer for why it exists.

There are two reasons why something might exist, either 2a or 2b)

2a) Why does this thing exist? Because it exists by necessity. (eg. Some mathematicians believe that numbers exist by necessity.)

or)

2b) Why does this thing exist? Because something outside or which transcends this thing brought in into existence. (eg. A watchmaker creates a watch.)

I'm not familiar with the 2003 study you reference, perhaps you'd like to share a link?

Here's a LINK to something that might be helpful. The most interesting thing is that this theorem would also apply to a multiverse if such exists.

so long as you limit your definition of "physical" to mean "composing of a form of matter" (and here I would include energy as a "form" since they are interchangeable) then you won't find much disagreement.

I don't have a problem with that definition.

I for one (and it sounds like SeminarySnoozer) am reluctant to bind myself to the implications of "spirit is matter" doctrine

This is why I was asking if a Latter-day Saint must accept the traditional materialist view or if the Standard Works might provide some alternative. Latter-day Saint Blackmarch, also expressed that a Latter-day Saint need not hold to such a view (LINK)

If I haven't said it already, welcome to the boards.

Thanks :)

[xVOWx]

All things in the universe exist either in a state of thought, energy, or matter (which is merely condensed energy). As our spirits are more than mere thoughts, but the very core of our being, it is reasonable to assume it is made of some kind of matter that science has yet to understand. This is nothing new, in fact, as there are many types of matter and energy that we still have yet to begin to understand (dark matter/dark energy are good examples). As far as how a soul "fits" within a body, it could be a cohesive interaction, such as how two different liquids with the same density can be mixed together. One interesting idea is that the amount of empty space between atoms and even sub-atomic particles is so vast that we are, in fact, more empty space than not. It is entirely possible that the soul is made of a type of matter that is able to exist within this empty space without interfering with what we perceive to be our solid bodies, or "normal" matter.

Just a thought.

[Anddenex]

Someone need not be a Latter-day Saint to interpret the Standard Works. Non-members are regularly encouraged to read the Standard Works.

Indeed, this wasn't what I find humorous. I think it is wonderful that non-members read the Standard works, however I find it humorous when a non-member seeks to tell a member what a verse actually means, while ignoring other verses of scripture which give further light and knowledge.

As I mentioned, very similar to the many non-members, who read the standard works, and then tell me the Book of Mormon teaches in totality against polygamy. In order to help them understand it doesn't and I share related verses in the Book of Mormon, as well as other scriptures, they are fixed in their understanding and decide they know for themselves despite further clarification.

[Anddenex]

Please clarify your position. Do you believe the spiritual and physical are the same thing? If not, when someone says they see something with "spiritual eyes" they do not necessarily mean "physical eyes", right?

Vort answered the assumption correctly.

Seeing with "spiritual eyes" and seeking to connect our other discussion relating to our spirits and matter, are not the same discussion.

Do I believe spiritual and physical are the same thing, No, they cannot be, otherwise the differentiation in scripture would be redundant and unnecessary.

Joseph Smith saw God the Father and His son, Jesus Christ, with spiritual eyes also. Nephi was taken away in the spirit and shown a marvelous interpretation through vision. One could easily say, he saw this through "spiritual eyes."

The three witnesses specifying they saw the plates with "spiritual eyes" is not the same thing as saying our spirits are matter.

Spiritual eyes also has more than one interpretation. Spiritual eyes could mean they understand and saw things as it was delivered by the spirit of God. Thus one could say, "I saw with my spiritual eyes...."

Or Spiritual eyes could also mean like on the mount of transfiguration and as I have read some people share with Joseph Smith, which makes sense, as he saw God. His body would have been changed to be able to endure God's presence, thus it could also be said that as a result of this spiritual change, Joseph Smith, Peter, James and John also saw with "spiritual eyes."

[Seminarysnoozer]

All things in the universe exist either in a state of thought, energy, or matter (which is merely condensed energy). As our spirits are more than mere thoughts, but the very core of our being, it is reasonable to assume it is made of some kind of matter that science has yet to understand. This is nothing new, in fact, as there are many types of matter and energy that we still have yet to begin to understand (dark matter/dark energy are good examples). As far as how a soul "fits" within a body, it could be a cohesive interaction, such as how two different liquids with the same density can be mixed together. One interesting idea is that the amount of empty space between atoms and even sub-atomic particles is so vast that we are, in fact, more empty space than not. It is entirely possible that the soul is made of a type of matter that is able to exist within this empty space without interfering with what we perceive to be our solid bodies, or "normal" matter.

Just a thought.

You are assuming that the two types of matter exist together naturally. I don't think we know if that is true. God placed Adam's spirit in him. It wasn't there before He placed it in him. At what point does the spirit enter the body in gestation? Most do not thing it is at the moment of conception. So, there is a body without a spirit for a period of time. And of course we know of spirits without a physical body.

In our pre-mortal life, for millions of years (or whatever length of time) did we have access to course matter or need it? Was it even around us at that time? If not, there is a place that exists that is not attached or mixed with "our universe".

What we call "our universe" may not be all there is in God's universe. Fine matter may not be anything that science could ever understand so to say it is something that science has yet to understand is to believe in potential for the tower of Babel. We are told that there are some things of God that are unreachable by man. Is the resurrected body made from the dust of this fallen world or from Celestial material?