Spirit Matter

[ElectofGod]

Luke 29:39 is where Jesus confirms he has a flesh-bone body and that spirits do not. If God is a spirit it follows that therefore God does not have a flesh-bone body.

I love studying what others believe and how it relates to my worldview. Christians are not bound to the Creeds, rather they can look to the historical biblical records to discover doctrine. In saying that Tom Wright an eminent New Testament scholar does often appeal to records outside the biblical accounts to give insight. Furthermore there are good reasons for rejecting such books, and probably, for the same reasons the Latter-day Saints have not accepted them into the standard works.

Fair enough.

Its all how people take those scriptures. Context is everything. There have been plenty of LDS scholars that have shown what we believe is in the bible too using only those scriptures. It comes down to how people "apply" what they read.

Even having the book of mormon and doctrine and concvenants we can still apply it to a certain way if we desire. This is why we have the holy ghost to reveal the truth of all things to each of us. Along with "revelations" from the Lord (like D&C) that clear it up. Also prophets.

The body is called "element" it is things created to be acted upon (according to one view). The spirit are things to act.

Random Quotes:

[T]he body is supposed to be organized matter, and the spirit by many is thought to be immaterial, without substance. With this latter statement we should beg leave to differ-and state that spirit is a substance; that it is material, but that it is more pure, elastic, and refined matter than the body;-that it existed before the body, can exist in the body, and will exist separate from the body, when the body will be mouldering in the dust; and will in the resurrection be again united with it.18

Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. . . . For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy. (D&C 93:29, 33).

Joseph Smith preached the following.

c. August 1839: “The Spirit of Man is not a created being; it existed from eternity and will exist to eternity.”

February 1840: “I believe that the soul is eternal; and had no beginning.”

January 1841: “If the soul of man had a beginning it will surely have an end. . . . Spirits are eternal.”

March 1841: “The spirit or the inteligence of men are self Existent principles.”

April 1842: “the spirits of men are eternal.”13

Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal, and yet have a beginning? Because if a spirit have a beginning it will have an end; good logic. I want to reason more on the spirit of man, for I am dwelling on the body of man, on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; but as the Lord lives there would be an end.-All the fools, learned and wise men, from the beginning of creation, who say that man had a beginning, proves that he must have an end and then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But, if I am right I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops, that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself: intelligence exists upon a self existent principle, it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. . . . I know that when I tell you these words of eternal life, that are given to me, I know you taste it and I know you believe it. You say honey is sweet and so do I. I can also taste the spirit of eternal life; I know it is good, and when I tell you of these things, that were given me by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, you are bound to receive it as sweet, and I rejoice more and more.24

Here is an interesting read with the quotes above: Joseph Smith’s Revelations on Preexistence and Spirits | The Pierian Spring

[selek]

Just to throw a rock into this tranquil little pool, I'd like to point out that most forms of radiation are made up of matter- and yet can penetrate us and fit within our material forms quite easily.

Light, by the same token, is comprised of both matter and energy (demonstrating wave-particle duality).

The OP proposed his questions (and tentative conclusions) based on a rather basic (as in elementary) assumptions do not survive more careful and detailed examination.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It hardly transcends nature since it exists within the physical universe which came into existence at the Big Bang. If one had a microscope good enough we could see spirit matter, except its so 'fine' we cant see it right now.

I don't think we can say that much about it. I don't think that has been revealed. I disagree with our ability to see 'fine' matter with a strong enough microscope. I doubt it is discernible through course matter means. I doubt there is a 'tower of Babel' that could detect fine matter. And, I don't think we need to go down the tower of Babel road again ... didn't we learn our lesson already?

Probably the better way to say it is that the physical world exists within the spiritual and not the other way around. The spiritual world is more encompassing, I'm sure. The physical is finite, limited and restricted.

[Guest Steph1ani1e]

have a nice day!!!!!

[Matthew0059]

I love studying what others believe and how it relates to my worldview. Christians are not bound to the Creeds...

But you are, friend.

Since time, space and matter began - whatever caused them must by definition by timeless, spaceless and immaterial - the God I believe in.

A timeless, spaceless, immaterial God is the God of the creeds, which were influenced as much by Greek (pagan) philosophy as by biblical texts. While a person may interpret the Bible in good faith through the lense of the creeds, the plain Biblical text does not require a person to believe in a God that is outside of the material (natural) world we live in. An alternative approach- that of the Latter-day Saints- also works.

The logical conclusion of the premise that God is "timeless, spaceless, and immaterial" is to believe that the heavens and the earth operate according to different sets of laws and rules. If that were the case, Christ could not have come to Earth, doing the things He saw His father do (John 5:19) and yet succeed in being perfect. Both heaven and earth have to operate according to the same basic principles- in fact, Christ's promise of the heavenly order one day returning to the Earth requires it.

The true answer has been laid out in part on this thread, and is laid out more fully in the LDS scriptures: God's laws and the laws of the natural universe are one and the same.

You can judge a tree by its fruits. A belief that God works by a kind of Natural Law helped foment the American Revolution, which led to the most free and prosperous country in history. A belief in the formless God outside of the natural world gave rise and justification to a tyrannical regime that ruled the world with an iron fist, murdering thousands and fostering lies and deceit.

Seperate the natural world and God, and you get tyranny and death. Join the two together-- in the right way-- and you get freedom and joy.

You reference the Big Bang a lot, and use it as evidence of the separation between heaven and earth. You're right that if something has a beginning, it will have an end. There are a few scientific alternatives to the Big Bang theory that hold the physical universe is eternal- it always was and always will be. One is generally called plasma cosmology or the "electric universe". You might be interested.

[Seminarysnoozer]

But you are, friend.

A timeless, spaceless, immaterial God is the God of the creeds, which were influenced as much by Greek (pagan) philosophy as by biblical texts. While a person may interpret the Bible in good faith through the lense of the creeds, the plain Biblical text does not require a person to believe in a God that is outside of the material (natural) world we live in. An alternative approach- that of the Latter-day Saints- also works.

The logical conclusion of the premise that God is "timeless, spaceless, and immaterial" is to believe that the heavens and the earth operate according to different sets of laws and rules. If that were the case, Christ could not have come to Earth, doing the things He saw His father do (John 5:19) and yet succeed in being perfect. Both heaven and earth have to operate according to the same basic principles- in fact, Christ's promise of the heavenly order one day returning to the Earth requires it.

The true answer has been laid out in part on this thread, and is laid out more fully in the LDS scriptures: God's laws and the laws of the natural universe are one and the same.

You can judge a tree by its fruits. A belief that God works by a kind of Natural Law helped foment the American Revolution, which led to the most free and prosperous country in history. A belief in the formless God outside of the natural world gave rise and justification to a tyrannical regime that ruled the world with an iron fist, murdering thousands and fostering lies and deceit.

Seperate the natural world and God, and you get tyranny and death. Join the two together-- in the right way-- and you get freedom and joy.

You reference the Big Bang a lot, and use it as evidence of the separation between heaven and earth. You're right that if something has a beginning, it will have an end. There are a few scientific alternatives to the Big Bang theory that hold the physical universe is eternal- it always was and always will be. One is generally called plasma cosmology or the "electric universe". You might be interested.

I think the laws of the spirit realm can be different from the laws of the physical world. I think this is why we are taught that spiritual things are discerned spiritually and carnal things are discerned carnally. There are laws that are "according to the flesh", otherwise why is that distinction made?

We believe in a God that has both a spirit and a body, don't we? His world is all encompassing but that doesn't automatically mean that we can detect that realm through carnal means alone.

(My shot at a metaphor) If I am in a submerged submarine, I might be breathing air but one would have to travel through water to get there or would have to detect it through the water. If one didn't have means to view through the water or travel through the water then it remains outside of her knowledge and yet the laws pertaining to the air on land and the air within the submarine could be similar or the same.

If God's realm is above or outside our scientific understanding and unreachable through scientific understanding then it is supernatural. But the definition of supernatural does not mean incompatibility with our nature. It doesn't mean there would be opposing laws that would preclude them from being together as two natures in one system even though right now we may have limited access to the spiritual nature.

It would be rather hard for one to subdue the other if they are the same nature.

[justinc]

But you are, friend.

I see no reason why a Christian must accept the historic creeds since the creeds are subject to Scripture. They are a statement of faith which from time to time I may disagree with. I am not bound to any articles of faith and am free to follow the evidence where it leads regarding biblical exegesis.

A timeless, spaceless, immaterial God is the God of the creeds, which were influenced as much by Greek (pagan) philosophy as by biblical texts. While a person may interpret the Bible in good faith through the lense of the creeds, the plain Biblical text does not require a person to believe in a God that is outside of the material (natural) world we live in. An alternative approach- that of the Latter-day Saints- also works.

I have to respectfully disagree that Gods immateriality is a result of the creeds. We are warned not to make images of God in the likeness of anything, since he resembles nothing, even human beings.

"You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below." Duet 4:15-18

If I remember rightly, it was the 'pagan' Greeks who believed in material embodied gods who live within our universe (Zeus etc) which would be closer to the Latter-day Saint view if anything.

The logical conclusion of the premise that God is "timeless, spaceless, and immaterial" is to believe that the heavens and the earth operate according to different sets of laws and rules. If that were the case, Christ could not have come to Earth, doing the things He saw His father do (John 5:19) and yet succeed in being perfect. Both heaven and earth have to operate according to the same basic principles- in fact, Christ's promise of the heavenly order one day returning to the Earth requires it.

The true answer has been laid out in part on this thread, and is laid out more fully in the LDS scriptures: God's laws and the laws of the natural universe are one and the same.

There isn't really a problem in my worldview since God created the Universe including the laws. As I see it, the immaterial mind acts as the driver and our bodies are the vehicles by which we relate to the physical Universe we live in.

You can judge a tree by its fruits. A belief that God works by a kind of Natural Law helped foment the American Revolution, which led to the most free and prosperous country in history. A belief in the formless God outside of the natural world gave rise and justification to a tyrannical regime that ruled the world with an iron fist, murdering thousands and fostering lies and deceit.

Seperate the natural world and God, and you get tyranny and death. Join the two together-- in the right way-- and you get freedom and joy.

You don't judge a worldview by its adherents. Which teaching of Christ were these men following when they were killing? Obviously they wernt following Jesus and were sinning. A doctor who murders a patient against his code of ethics doesn't mean there's a problem with the code of ethics, there is a problem with the doctor.

If the same were applied to the blood atonement doctrine, the fruits may have been the mountain meadows incident.

I only bring it up in the same way you have brought up violent Christians to give some perspective, no offence.

You reference the Big Bang a lot, and use it as evidence of the separation between heaven and earth. You're right that if something has a beginning, it will have an end. There are a few scientific alternatives to the Big Bang theory that hold the physical universe is eternal- it always was and always will be. One is generally called plasma cosmology or the "electric universe". You might be interested.

The Big Bang is the standard view of cosmology for the origins of the universe. There are various problems with the plasma models which I have read about, I'm not at home right now so I don't have theissues on hand nevertheless, "almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang." (Stephen Hawking)

[Matthew0059]

I think the laws of the spirit realm can be different from the laws of the physical world. I think this is why we are taught that spiritual things are discerned spiritually and carnal things are discerned carnally. There are laws that are "according to the flesh", otherwise why is that distinction made?

I think I get where you're coming from. I'll further elucidate and then see if you still disagree with me.

The Restoration Scriptures- Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price- hold some of the most valuable doctrine for understanding how the universe works. The Doctrine and Covenants, specifically, is replete with talk about the laws that God operates by. For example, all God's commandments are "spiritual", not "temporal or natural, neither carnal nor sensual" (D&C 29:35). There is a law in heaven which all blessings in this earthly life are based upon (D&C 130:20). All spirit is matter (D&C 131:7), and the physical bodies of all mortal creatures were created in the "likeness" of their spiritual bodies (D&C 77:2); those spiritual bodies were created "in heaven" before the creation of their physical bodies (Moses 3:5, 7).

Moreover, when Jesus taught, He was constantly comparing the things of the Spirit and the Kingdom of heaven to earthly objects and circumstances (literally every parable He used depended on a person's understanding of earthly things to grasp the spiritual meaning of said parable).

Now, could all this be possible if the laws and governance of spiritual matter was different than the laws and governance of physical matter? The difference between spirit is that it is the "stuff" that acts, and element is the "stuff" that is acted upon (2 Nephi 2:13-14); two different kinds of matter that follows the same basic rules of operation. Note that footnote A for D&C 131:7- regarding the fact that spirit is matter- links the word "spirit" to "Spirit Body" and "Spirit Creation".

So our spiritual bodies and temporal bodies are in the same "likeness" of each other (they have the same form, functionality, etc., and may literally look exactly the same). If God's body is made up of spirit and element like our bodies- the difference would be the elements in His body are "inseparably connected" (D&C 93:3)- then it stands to reason that the laws that govern the realm where he lives (heaven) are the same as the laws that govern where we live (earth). The laws decreed in heaven (see D&C 130:20) dictate the "correct" actions of both spiritual and physical matter.

There is a distinct difference between heaven and earth, and people and things can behave differently on earth than in heaven. But we can safely ascribe that to the fact we live in a fallen, Telestial sphere filled with disobedient creatures. When viewed with the proper frame of reference, any *perceived* difference between how heaven and earth works can be boiled down to either an act of rebellion against the light of God, or a misunderstanding/ignorance of all the factors at play in a given situation.

To use a basic physical example: a spiritual law is that like spiritual attributes are attracted to one another ("intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light", etc.- see D&C 88:40). Physical objects are also attracted to one another, and in various ways: large physical bodies attract each other via gravity, and electromagnetic forces will also force magnets and certain metals to be attracted. Both of those truths- spiritual and physical "things" are attracted to each other- are manifestations of the same basic law.

In the same vein, *all* physical and spiritual matter is based on the same set of laws which manifest themselves in similar ways. That is how Jesus was able to use examples from the physical and natural world to teach about the kingdom of heaven.

(My shot at a metaphor) If I am in a submerged submarine, I might be breathing air but one would have to travel through water to get there or would have to detect it through the water. If one didn't have means to view through the water or travel through the water then it remains outside of her knowledge and yet the laws pertaining to the air on land and the air within the submarine could be similar or the same.

I think this metaphor is good, but bear in mind that the same basic physical laws that governed how the water and the air- and the submarine, surrounding wildlife, and you yourself- are the same everywhere. The water outside the submarine would be made of individual water molecules comprising one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms. The air inside would be made of various gases including oxygen. The oxygen atoms inside the submarine and the oxygen outside of the submarine would be the same stuff, just in different physical arrangements. I think your analogy is a good example of how the earth works, but it doesn't affirm the idea of a supernatural. Point in fact, the air inside the submarine is the exact same kind of "stuff" as the air above the ocean, with the same basic physical structure.

If God's realm is above or outside our scientific understanding and unreachable through scientific understanding then it is supernatural. But the definition of supernatural does not mean incompatibility with our nature.

I think your word usage of "supernatural" is problematic, and I think it reflects our basic disagreement here. The issue isn't so much "are the laws of heaven incompatible with our nature", but "are they the same or not".

Using a definition pulled off the internet, "supernatural" is defined as "[a]ttributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." The first part of that definition (beyond scientific understanding) is well and good, but IMO sloppy. The second part (being "beyond... the laws of nature") is where things get problematic.

Defining the things and ways of God and the spirit as "supernatural" implies that they are outside the laws of nature (which are really the laws of God or the laws of heaven, and dictate the actions of both spirit and element). There is, in fact, *nothing* that exists which is truly supernatural, because everything- to be real- must be comprised of the basic building blocks of everything. Those building blocks are called "spirit" and "element".

It is only in the vain imaginations of men and women, disconnected from the truth and the spirit of Truth (D&C 93:26), that "supernatural" things exist.

[Matthew0059]

I see no reason why a Christian must accept the historic creeds since the creeds are subject to Scripture. They are a statement of faith which from time to time I may disagree with. I am not bound to any articles of faith and am free to follow the evidence where it leads regarding biblical exegesis.

You are correct that you are not bound to any articles of faith- only the truth should be your guide. Yet your views of an immaterial God reflect perfectly the God of Aristotle and Plato, and Greek philosophy. The "movers and shakers" of Greek philosophy greatly influenced the Hellenistic culture which ultimately came to dominate Rome and the Christians who created the creeds.

It might be argued that "well, the Greeks and Romans were right!". Yet it would be wise to bear in mind that Greece and Rome were a part of the image seen by Nebuchednezzar and Daniel in vision (corresponding to the kingdom of iron; see Daniel 2:40); they were the spiritual successors of Babylon. The effects of Greco-Roman philosophy and government are felt even today in the powerful nations of the world (the toes made of clay and iron mixed). The stone cut out of the mountain with hands- the kingdom of God- will destroy these kingdoms in the last day. The wickedness found in those nations comes in great part from the false belief found in the underlying philosophy of Greece and Rome (including the disembodied, passionless God of the creeds).

I have to respectfully disagree that Gods immateriality is a result of the creeds. We are warned not to make images of God in the likeness of anything, since he resembles nothing, even human beings.

"You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below." Duet 4:15-18

Except Moses saw and spoke with God "face to face" on more than one occasion; he also is forbidden from speaking to God face to face once and is covered by God's "hand" and sees only His "back parts". Moreover, God is repeatedly being given human characteristics, both passions and parts.

There is another reason that men are commanded not to make images of God: worship for the image often replaces worship for God. This happens repeatedly in Israelite history. One notable example would be the worship of Gideon's golden ephod (Judges 8:27). There was no justification for going "whoring" after it, but the Israelites did it anyway. Even the tokens that God *did* give to Israel- particularly the Ark of the Covenant- developed a mystic sensation about them; the sons of Eli thought that the mere presence of the Ark would net the Israelites victory in battle despite their wickedness and neglect of God's laws.

You don't judge a worldview by its adherents.

Yes you do. You judge a tree by its fruits. That was plainly taught by Christ. While the people who believe correct things may make mistakes and therefore need forgiveness, so too will a good tree occasionally produce a rotten apple- yet the overall quality of the tree's fruit will be good.

When an institution promotes and enforces tyranny at the edge of the sword for centuries, doesn't give up power except when utterly defeated, and preaches one thing and does another- then you know that the tree is rotten for one reason or another. The first Puritans and Protestants would agree with this, although they probably wouldn't agree with me that the creeds and Greek philosophy shouldered a large part of the blame for that rottenness.

If the same were applied to the blood atonement doctrine, the fruits may have been the mountain meadows incident.

I only bring it up in the same way you have brought up violent Christians to give some perspective, no offence.

None taken. I should note that although I speak somewhat obscurely about the "institution" that resulted from the "creeds", it should be pretty clear to anyone with a basic understanding of Christian history to understand what that institution was. It was not any Puritanical or Protestant institution. I try to step delicately so as to avoid giving undue offense.

The doctrine of blood atonement did indeed play a part in Mountain Meadows. It was a terrible tragedy- one of those "rotten fruits" I mentioned earlier. Yet blood atonement was one ancillary branch of LDS theology, and revenge killings were outlying incidents, not the normal behavior among early Latter-day Saints (revenge killings are still frowned upon. ). In no way was the LDS Church as a formal institution a part of the massacre.

The Big Bang is the standard view of cosmology for the origins of the universe. There are various problems with the plasma models which I have read about,

I'll cede both points. The science and popularity of plasma cosmology simply isn't yet developed enough to compete with the Big Bang as a strong contender. It doesn't hurt that the scientific establishment, at this point, is so rooted in theories derived from the Big Bang that accepting its fundamental assumptions as flawed would ruin the careers and work of many prominent scientists.

But that's not here nor there at the moment.

I'm not at home right now so I don't have theissues on hand nevertheless, "almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang." (Stephen Hawking)

Good ol' Stephen Hawking. The man who has boldly proclaimed that "science makes God unnecessary". He even wrote a book about it.

One of the earliest formulations of the Big Bang was from a Catholic priest named Georges Lamaitre. It was the scientific, "provable" version of creation ex nihilo. Now the scientists of the world can "prove" via mathematical calculation and a whole lot of assuming and extrapolating that God is not really even needed. The next step is to "prove" that the traditional Christian God who exists outside of space and time and exists without passion and parts is also impossible, and therefore "prove" that God doesn't in fact exist.

Although a lot of the things I'm saying sound (and are) harsh to someone who agrees with the Nicene and other creeds about the nature of God, I should note that there are a lot of truths to be found in historical Christianity, and a lot of doctrine that ought to be believed and accepted. Using LDS terms, there is some "light and truth" there.

Edited May 9, 2013 by Matthew0059

[justinc]

You are correct that you are not bound to any articles of faith- only the truth should be your guide. Yet your views of an immaterial God reflect perfectly the God of Aristotle and Plato, and Greek philosophy. The "movers and shakers" of Greek philosophy greatly influenced the Hellenistic culture which ultimately came to dominate Rome and the Christians who created the creeds.

It might be argued that "well, the Greeks and Romans were right!". Yet it would be wise to bear in mind that Greece and Rome were a part of the image seen by Nebuchednezzar and Daniel in vision (corresponding to the kingdom of iron; see Daniel 2:40); they were the spiritual successors of Babylon. The effects of Greco-Roman philosophy and government are felt even today in the powerful nations of the world (the toes made of clay and iron mixed). The stone cut out of the mountain with hands- the kingdom of God- will destroy these kingdoms in the last day. The wickedness found in those nations comes in great part from the false belief found in the underlying philosophy of Greece and Rome (including the disembodied, passionless God of the creeds).

The Christian belief that God is immaterial stems from the belief that all things are dependent upon God for their existence, including matter. God "calls things into existence that do not exist" (Romans 4:17) he "created all things" (Revelations 4:11, Ephesians 3:9, Isaiah 44:24) including the physical universe we live in, the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1).

Belief in Creation from nothing is found in Jewish writings as far back as 124BC “I beg you, child, look at the sky and the earth; see all that is in them and realize that God made them out of nothing, and that man comes into being in the same way” (2 Macc 7:28).

The first-century Rabbi Gamaliel expresses the same belief when challenged "Your God was indeed a great artist, but he had good materials to help him" Gamaliel responded "All of them are explicitly described as having been created by him"

Creation from nothing was held evidently by Jews not to mention the New Testament authors who affirmed that God created all things. The universe it seems, is a thing, and God created it. It may be that the Greek/Roman philosophers came to believe in an immaterial God because there are good philosophical reasons to hold that view.

Except Moses saw and spoke with God "face to face" on more than one occasion; he also is forbidden from speaking to God face to face once and is covered by God's "hand" and sees only His "back parts". Moreover, God is repeatedly being given human characteristics, both passions and parts.

There is another reason that men are commanded not to make images of God: worship for the image often replaces worship for God. This happens repeatedly in Israelite history. One notable example would be the worship of Gideon's golden ephod (Judges 8:27). There was no justification for going "whoring" after it, but the Israelites did it anyway. Even the tokens that God *did* give to Israel- particularly the Ark of the Covenant- developed a mystic sensation about them; the sons of Eli thought that the mere presence of the Ark would net the Israelites victory in battle despite their wickedness and neglect of God's laws.

I don't see a problem in believing that God appeared physically to Moses, as I mentioned earlier, "As I see it, the immaterial mind acts as the driver and our bodies are the vehicles by which we relate to the physical Universe we live in." Although God has no form (Duet 4:15-18) he may relate to the physical world by appearing in different forms (Burning bush, pillar of fire, cloud, human). Some of the references where it speaks of 'Gods hand' etc are anthropomorphism's. Likewise we should also suppose that God does not have feathered wings as in Psalm 91:4, rather in this case it is being used metaphorically.

The 'Lectures on Faith' also express that in early Latter-day Saint thought, some regarded God as a spirit.

The New Testament teaches that "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24) and "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39) Earlier someone pointed out that God is both a spirit and a body. But Christ was clear that to regard someone as a spirit, that someone does not have flesh and bones.

I'll cede both points. The science and popularity of plasma cosmology simply isn't yet developed enough to compete with the Big Bang as a strong contender. It doesn't hurt that the scientific establishment, at this point, is so rooted in theories derived from the Big Bang that accepting its fundamental assumptions as flawed would ruin the careers and work of many prominent scientists.

But that's not here nor there at the moment.

It has been established that regardless of the model we choose that the universe must have had a beginning.

In 2003 three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. The theorem is independent of any physical description universe prior to the Planck time. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. [LINK]

Latter-day Saint Scientist David H. Bailey has commented "The notion that everything in our universe originated in a big bang approximately 15 billion years ago creates some problems for Mormon theology (Norman 1985). A God who exists in space and time should reside within the observable universe, not without it. In that case God is not eternal in a literal and absolute sense but instead came into being after the big bang. A

straightforward solution to this dilemma is to abandon a strict interpretation of the word eternal, as is suggested in Doctrine and Covenants 19:6-12. After all, 15 billion years may not be forever, but it is so far beyond our comprehension as to be eternal for all practical purposes. In that event God (Elohim) is not the being who crafted the universe at the big bang. If there is such a being, it is a deity beyond Elohim. Mormon theology, of course, allows the possibility of a hierarchy of deities ( D&C 121:28)."

Secondly, it is impossible for an actually infinite number of things to exist, namely an infinite number of past events. Mathematician David Hilbert showed that "The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea".

In Latter-day Saint theology I have existed forever. Which means I have endured an actually infinite number of past events. But that is impossible. For if I today began counting from 1 to ∞ (Infinity) you could stop me at any point and ask me what number I am on and I would have to give you a finite number but never could I give you ∞. It is impossible to traverse an infinite. If I have existed for ever it would be the same as counting down from ∞ and arriving at 1. But if there is no way to start counting, there is no way to arrive at today. For to count down I would first need to start counting somewhere but I could never reach a place to start counting. Of course I have the potential to live forever, but I have never actualized that potential because there is still time in the future to which I can live.

Good ol' Stephen Hawking. The man who has boldly proclaimed that "science makes God unnecessary". He even wrote a book about it.

One of the earliest formulations of the Big Bang was from a Catholic priest named Georges Lamaitre. It was the scientific, "provable" version of creation ex nihilo. Now the scientists of the world can "prove" via mathematical calculation and a whole lot of assuming and extrapolating that God is not really even needed. The next step is to "prove" that the traditional Christian God who exists outside of space and time and exists without passion and parts is also impossible, and therefore "prove" that God doesn't in fact exist.

Although a lot of the things I'm saying sound (and are) harsh to someone who agrees with the Nicene and other creeds about the nature of God, I should note that there are a lot of truths to be found in historical Christianity, and a lot of doctrine that ought to be believed and accepted. Using LDS terms, there is some "light and truth" there.

Stephen Hawking is a physicist. In his books he likes to make philosophical claims which are outside of his field. Science - the study of nature - has nothing to say about the supernatural which transcends nature and the metaphysical.

Besides all of this, let us both rejoice that our Lord Jesus Christ "is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2)

Edited May 10, 2013 by justinc

[Seminarysnoozer]

In Latter-day Saint theology I have existed forever. Which means I have endured an actually infinite number of past events. But that is impossible. For if I today began counting from 1 to ∞ (Infinity) you could stop me at any point and ask me what number I am on and I would have to give you a finite number but never could I give you ∞. It is impossible to traverse an infinite. If I have existed for ever it would be the same as counting down from ∞ and arriving at 1. But if there is no way to start counting, there is no way to arrive at today. For to count down I would first need to start counting somewhere but I could never reach a place to start counting. Of course I have the potential to live forever, but I have never actualized that potential because there is still time in the future to which I can live.

Any Christian understands the power of vicarious acts as that is the role of Christ. It is also understood the desire of Christ that we become one. Is it not possible to vicariously "take on" all the acts performed before and in that way make it our own?

The importance of being a covenant people and through the power of resurrection we believe it is possible to be one with God. If I am one with God some day then I can receive a fullness of all He has. There is nothing left out of that fullness. It isn't limited to the past 50 billion years or whatever number you want to put on it and it is not limited in the future. To comprehend this does not require a degree in physics or philosophy only to understand the power of vicarious acts and the importance of covenants which bind us to the past and the future. The details of which, we are probably not capable of understanding at this time.

God having received His fullness at some point became part of that system of Eternal Life that does not have a beginning or an end.

If a person was raised isolated in some distant jungle outside of the modern world was brought into the modern world and was able to learn and take advantage of all the things learned before his time then suddenly he gained years of time of experience. His existence just expanded by many hundreds of years. Extrapolate that to what it means to be Eternal. For example, you may say that you know how to speak English but you did not invent English and yet you have made it your own. It may (or may not) be your native language. (Whatever your native language is you call it your own.) How can you call it "your" native language when you weren't around at the start and didn't "create" it yourself? Because just by learning it we call it our own.

[Traveler]

The Christian belief that God is immaterial stems from the belief that all things are dependent upon God for their existence, including matter. God "calls things into existence that do not exist" (Romans 4:17) he "created all things" (Revelations 4:11, Ephesians 3:9, Isaiah 44:24) including the physical universe we live in, the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1).

Belief in Creation from nothing is found in Jewish writings as far back as 124BC “I beg you, child, look at the sky and the earth; see all that is in them and realize that God made them out of nothing, and that man comes into being in the same way” (2 Macc 7:28).

The first-century Rabbi Gamaliel expresses the same belief when challenged "Your God was indeed a great artist, but he had good materials to help him" Gamaliel responded "All of them are explicitly described as having been created by him"

Creation from nothing was held evidently by Jews not to mention the New Testament authors who affirmed that God created all things. The universe it seems, is a thing, and God created it. It may be that the Greek/Roman philosophers came to believe in an immaterial God because there are good philosophical reasons to hold that view.

I don't see a problem in believing that God appeared physically to Moses, as I mentioned earlier, "As I see it, the immaterial mind acts as the driver and our bodies are the vehicles by which we relate to the physical Universe we live in." Although God has no form (Duet 4:15-18) he may relate to the physical world by appearing in different forms (Burning bush, pillar of fire, cloud, human). Some of the references where it speaks of 'Gods hand' etc are anthropomorphism's. Likewise we should also suppose that God does not have feathered wings as in Psalm 91:4, rather in this case it is being used metaphorically.

The 'Lectures on Faith' also express that in early Latter-day Saint thought, some regarded God as a spirit.

The New Testament teaches that "God is a Spirit" (John 4:24) and "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39) Earlier someone pointed out that God is both a spirit and a body. But Christ was clear that to regard someone as a spirit, that someone does not have flesh and bones.

It has been established that regardless of the model we choose that the universe must have had a beginning.

In 2003 three leading cosmologists, Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. The theorem is independent of any physical description universe prior to the Planck time. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. [LINK]

Latter-day Saint Scientist David H. Bailey has commented "The notion that everything in our universe originated in a big bang approximately 15 billion years ago creates some problems for Mormon theology (Norman 1985). A God who exists in space and time should reside within the observable universe, not without it. In that case God is not eternal in a literal and absolute sense but instead came into being after the big bang. A

straightforward solution to this dilemma is to abandon a strict interpretation of the word eternal, as is suggested in Doctrine and Covenants 19:6-12. After all, 15 billion years may not be forever, but it is so far beyond our comprehension as to be eternal for all practical purposes. In that event God (Elohim) is not the being who crafted the universe at the big bang. If there is such a being, it is a deity beyond Elohim. Mormon theology, of course, allows the possibility of a hierarchy of deities ( D&C 121:28)."

Secondly, it is impossible for an actually infinite number of things to exist, namely an infinite number of past events. Mathematician David Hilbert showed that "The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea".

In Latter-day Saint theology I have existed forever. Which means I have endured an actually infinite number of past events. But that is impossible. For if I today began counting from 1 to ∞ (Infinity) you could stop me at any point and ask me what number I am on and I would have to give you a finite number but never could I give you ∞. It is impossible to traverse an infinite. If I have existed for ever it would be the same as counting down from ∞ and arriving at 1. But if there is no way to start counting, there is no way to arrive at today. For to count down I would first need to start counting somewhere but I could never reach a place to start counting. Of course I have the potential to live forever, but I have never actualized that potential because there is still time in the future to which I can live.

Stephen Hawking is a physicist. In his books he likes to make philosophical claims which are outside of his field. Science - the study of nature - has nothing to say about the supernatural which transcends nature and the metaphysical.

Besides all of this, let us both rejoice that our Lord Jesus Christ "is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2)

As a physicists, engineer and scientist - as well as a studied theologian I will take exception as well as agreement to your statements. But I will begin addressing your assumption that G-d is supernatural. I am impressed that rather than being supernatural and transcending that which is natural - G-d is in every possible sense the exact opposite -- the true natural. That in reality G-d does not do anything that is not natural. But I would add the caveat that what is natural to G-d is not quite the same as what seems natural to us in a very limited narrow temporary state of mortality. Thus I submit that it is not G-d but we mortals that are "supernatural" and the great temporary exception to what is natural.

Next I will address what you call "The Big Bang". I think you have misunderstood some "things" in assuming that the theory of the Big Bang defined a beginning. Rather than a beginning the theory is actually just a point from which we thought or think we cannot see beyond - or as some have said, an event horizon on a much larger landscape that in reality cannot have a beginning.

Next point - That G-d exist outside space time. I am not sure what anyone means by this because space time is not a static thing but as proven by Relativity and Special Relativity is far more dynamic - especially as understood and described by theologians that have not kept pace with the ever changing (evolving and improving) concepts of science. I would draw attention to Galileo's scientific discoveries as an example of theological failures. But beyond argument and various assumptions, Jesus Christ is the example of G-d in space time. Farther more; the scriptures speaks to a living G-d - which implies an empirical presents that occupies space time.

However, I see the gap ever increasing and becoming broader between science and traditional Christianity as man becomes more informed and knowledgeable of the principles and laws G-d established to be natural as the means to create, maintain and to govern his creations. Opposition to evolution is so far in the past to most scientist that we have hardly begin to realize or consider the theological impact of electromagnetism to light, Relativity, Special Relativity, quantum mechanics and particle physics (as well as the discoveries of dark matter and dark energy) that demonstrate a very natural relationship of creation to how things continue to exist and unfold.

The Traveler

Edited May 10, 2013 by Traveler

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon justinc. I hope you are doing well! :)

Luke 29:39 is where Jesus confirms he has a flesh-bone body and that spirits do not. If God is a spirit it follows that therefore God does not have a flesh-bone body.

How do you resolve the contradiction in your statement above. You state that Luke 29:39 confirms that Jesus has "a flesh-bone body". Then you state, "God is a spirit...therefore God does not have a flesh-bone body".

Are you saying, Jesus (who is God) has a flesh-bone body, but God the Father is a spirit?

How does that work coming from your particular Christian worldview?

Regards,

Finrock

[justinc]

I will begin addressing your assumption that G-d is supernatural. I am impressed that rather than being supernatural and transcending that which is natural - G-d is in every possible sense the exact opposite -- the true natural. That in reality G-d does not do anything that is not natural. But I would add the caveat that what is natural to G-d is not quite the same as what seems natural to us in a very limited narrow temporary state of mortality. Thus I submit that it is not G-d but we mortals that are "supernatural" and the great temporary exception to what is natural.

When I say that God is supernatural, I mean to say that nature - the way that God has created the natural laws of the universe - the way things act - God transcends all of this since he created it.

Other Ancient Near Eastern religions taught that the gods were a personification of a natural phenomenon (they believed the sun, sky and water etc were gods). These gods do not transcend the material world and are limited to the power of the phenomena they personify. These gods were subject to the laws of the physical universe.

Rather the God of the Jews was the creator of such natural phenomenon. He creates light and divides it from the darkness etc and thereby establishes natural law which he is not subject to.

It seems we are in agreement as you mentioned: "principles and laws G-d established to be natural".

Next I will address what you call "The Big Bang". I think you have misunderstood some "things" in assuming that the theory of the Big Bang defined a beginning. Rather than a beginning the theory is actually just a point from which we thought or think we cannot see beyond - or as some have said, an event horizon on a much larger landscape that in reality cannot have a beginning.

From what I have read the Big Bang is the beginning of the universe. But I would want to ask the deeper question 'Why does anything at all exist rather than nothing?'

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause (either it must exist or something else caused it)

Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of it's existence, that explanation is in an external cause, namely an unembodied mind

Premise 3: The Universe exists

Premise 4 (follows from 1&3): The Universe has an explanation of its existence

Conclusion (follows from 2&4): Therefore, the explanation of the universe is an unembodied mind

Which of the premises would you disagree with and why? (Since the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises)

Next point - That G-d exist outside space time. I am not sure what anyone means by this because space time is not a static thing but as proven by Relativity and Special Relativity is far more dynamic - especially as understood and described by theologians that have not kept pace with the ever changing (evolving and improving) concepts of science. I would draw attention to Galileo's scientific discoveries as an example of theological failures. But beyond argument and various assumptions, Jesus Christ is the example of G-d in space time. Farther more; the scriptures speaks to a living G-d - which implies an empirical presents that occupies space time.

Just to clarify my position. We must ask the question 'What is time?' I take it that time only exists because of movement or change and therefore would not exist prior to Creation. At the moment of Creation God does exist in time. Genesis, although very metaphorical suggests an ultimate beginning of time

A literal translation of the Hebrew shows the days not as "first day, second day, third day etc" but as "day one, second day, third day" which seems to me to indicate an absolute beginning of time at the first creation event.

However, I see the gap ever increasing and becoming broader between science and traditional Christianity as man becomes more informed and knowledgeable of the principles and laws G-d established to be natural as the means to create, maintain and to govern his creations. Opposition to evolution is so far in the past to most scientist that we have hardly begin to realize or consider the theological impact of electromagnetism to light, Relativity, Special Relativity, quantum mechanics and particle physics (as well as the discoveries of dark matter and dark energy) that demonstrate a very natural relationship of creation to how things continue to exist and unfold.

There is no problem in my worldview since I see God as transcending nature and creating laws which he is not subject to. So I see no problem with the virgin birth and resurrection from the dead as supernatural events which God caused. Rather I see Philosophical reasoning as the best rational support for a Creator God.

Thanks for your insights!

Edited May 10, 2013 by justinc

[justinc]

Good Afternoon justinc. I hope you are doing well! :)

How do you resolve the contradiction in your statement above. You state that Luke 29:39 confirms that Jesus has "a flesh-bone body". Then you state, "God is a spirit...therefore God does not have a flesh-bone body".

Are you saying, Jesus (who is God) has a flesh-bone body, but God the Father is a spirit?

How does that work coming from your particular Christian worldview?

Regards,

Finrock

I take it that the Father, the Word & Holy Spirit are individual persons and therefore all exist as individual minds. "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14) "in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7). They all exist as one Deity (2 Nephi 31:21). In what sense are they one Deity? I'm not entirely sure. But it may be that it is because of the perfect unity they share. I could see that as a valid position to hold.

[Seminarysnoozer]

It is only in the vain imaginations of men and women, disconnected from the truth and the spirit of Truth (D&C 93:26), that "supernatural" things exist.

Was the Prophet Lorenzo Snow "disconnected from the truth" when he used the word "supernatural"; "President Lorenzo Snow was a worker, following his own often-repeated counsel: “We have to exert ourselves. … Remaining idle without putting ourselves into action is of no use.” But he acknowledged that in his desire to build up the kingdom of God, his own exertions would never be enough without the grace of God—or “supernatural aid,” as he often called it. "

Or how about Dallin H. Oaks when he explained the dangers of removing the supernatural from religion; "“What think ye of Christ?” (Matt. 22:42.) That question is as penetrating today as when Jesus used it to confound the Pharisees almost two thousand years ago. Like a sword, sharp and powerful, it uncovers what is hidden, divides truth from error, and goes to the heart of religious belief.

Here are some answers being given today.

Some praise Jesus Christ as the greatest teacher who ever lived, but deny that he is Messiah, Savior, or Redeemer. Some prominent theologians teach that our secularized world needs “a new concept of God,” stripped of the supernatural. They believe that not even a suffering God can help to solve the pain and tragedy of modern man."

From the teachings of the Presidents, Lorenzo Snow; "Latter-day Saints, while in the performance of their duties, they are entitled to supernatural aid from the Holy Spirit, to help in the various conditions surrounding them, and in the duties that they are required to perform."

And Marion G. Romney said; "“By the statement in the revelation on spiritual gifts, ‘… it is given by the Holy Ghost to some to know the diversities of operations, whether they be of God, … and to others the discerning of spirits’ [D&C 46:16, 23], it appears that there are some apparently supernatural manifestations which are not worked by the power of the Holy Ghost. The truth is there are many which are not. The world today is full of counterfeits. It has always been so. …"

____

Also, the difference between that which acts versus that which is acted upon has to do with agency and accountability, just to be clear. Entities that act hold some level of accountability for their actions but that does not mean that things that are acted upon cannot act on their own. When a virus kills a human being, is the virus an actor or being acted upon? Of course, the virus is not responsible for its actions. But now we are miss using the word "act" from the quoted scripture you gave. The 2 Nephi chapter 2 type of "act" is just referring to acts that are associated with agency and consequences of accountability. It is not referring to any kind of action whatsoever. 2 Nephi explains that there could not be agency and consequences if there are not opposites. And, that is why God created this "nature" so that we could have the chance to act upon our agency and be responsible. In other words, there has to be things in this world that are not responsible for their actions in order to have opposites. This is why when someone is killed by a lightning bolt, it really isn't an "act" of God (most of the time). It is simply an action of a force that does not have accountability. Or should we really hold God responsible for all "acts of God"?

[Bensalem]

I was having a conversation with a Latter-day Saint who believes that our Spirits are made up of matter. His justification for this is D&C 131:7-8.

I'm curious how this would work? How does a material Spirit body fit with our material Flesh and Bone body in any sense? Do the Spirit particles sit between the flesh and bone particles? If you loose an arm are you loosing part of your Spirit body as well?

Just curious, I hold to the classical Christian view that the Spirit is immaterial.

Here's what I know of the subject. Everything that exists must be material, it must be made of matter...spirits included. An immaterial spirit cannot exist. To exist means to be made of substance or matter.

Christ said He was the Light and the Resurrection. After this life we will be resurrected in light and light has substance. Visible light is made of photons and photons have mass. There are no forms of energy that exist in the absence of mass.

Gravity is a form of energy which cannot be seen, yet it cannot exist without matter. Gravity is a byproduct of matter even as the spirit is.

Pre-resurrected and pre-mortal spirits (angels) have shown themselves to man. They are manifested in light, yet are not resurrected. Their substance is different than a resurrected being, but both are material; they both exist in matter.

Likewise, our human bodies are tabernacles of substance in which our spirits live. Where is the spirit that once was life? Mortal death is the absence of our life spirit. The body dies, not the spirit. Hence Christ taught that we are eternal...that the spirit continues; and that the spirit proceeded our mortal life.

How can something come of nothing? If spirits are immaterial, how can they come to live in us? How can the Spirit of Christ live in us if spirit is immaterial? You must at least admit that Christ is material, that the Holy Ghost is real.

Our doctrine, the LDS teachings, come from prophets who have seen and interacted with both resurrected beings (the Father and the Son) and spiritual beings (the Holy Ghost) and have declared that both are material. The "Good News" continues to be broadcast in and through the Church and Her saints which live in revelation from Christ.

So much (too much) of Christianity is nothing more than philosophy etched in stone. God lives and He has shown Himself to His saints.

[justinc]

Here's what I know of the subject. Everything that exists must be material, it must be made of matter...spirits included. An immaterial spirit cannot exist. To exist means to be made of substance or matter.

If something is material, it makes sense to ask of it "how big is it?" and "where is it?" When I experience love or justice it doesn't make sense to ask "how much does love weigh?" and "how much space does justice take up?" It may be right to say that there is a chemical inside the brain which is reacting, but I'm talking about the feeling of love and justice themselves as we experience them. Since love and justice aren't themselves material things, in your worldview they must just be illusions. But why deny the existence of such? We all experience a realm of morality which itself is not material, but what good reason is there for denying that love and justice exist? I can think of none. If we deny the reality of love and justice we may equality deny the reality of anything in the world. Should I believe rather that I am living inside the matrix and that everything is an illusion? After all I cant prove that I'm not in the matrix. The reason I deny that I live in the matrix and affirm the existence of love and justice is because of what I experience in life.

Furthermore, look at the statement "Everything that exists must be material.. To exist means to be made of substance or matter"

Those words themselves written on a piece of paper are material. But what about the thought itself, the concept, the idea? Is the idea "all things are material" a material thing? If not then according to yourself it does not exist. If the concept that "all things are material" is made of matter it would make sense to ask "how big is it?" "what will it look like when I cut it in half? (since matter is dividable)" But of course one cant cut a concept in half. We could cut a sentence in half, but not a concept. I think a pure materialist view of reality is self defeating.

As you mentioned "To exist means to be made of substance or matter". If love, justice and concepts are immaterial, on your view they must not exist.

How can something come of nothing? If spirits are immaterial, how can they come to live in us? How can the Spirit of Christ live in us if spirit is immaterial? You must at least admit that Christ is material, that the Holy Ghost is real.

I guess your referring to Creation from nothing? God exists prior to Creation and thereby creates the physical universe. I take it that our immaterial spirits animate our physical bodies. Our bodies are the vehicle that we use to interact with the physical universe. We often talk about the sun rising and falling, but of course we know that is not the case. Similarly we may use language of something "within us" as a sort of way of expressing something we perceive and experience. My view is that Christ took on a material body at the incarnation and was resurrected in a renewed physical body. If the Holy Spirit is material, he must exist as some sort of fluctuating being that takes up enough space to fill the universe. When the Spirit leaves a room, we must move his particles of matter somewhere else, but where if he already takes up the universe? Thoughts would be good on this one, maybe I'm jumping ahead?

So much (too much) of Christianity is nothing more than philosophy etched in stone.

Philosophy is a valid method at seeking truth. Joseph Smith once said "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may."

Also, is there anything in the Standard Works that would prevent a Latter-day Saint from believing in the immateriality of the Spirit?

Edited May 11, 2013 by justinc

[Anddenex]

As you mentioned "To exist means to be made of substance or matter". If love, justice and concepts are immaterial, on your view they must not exist.

I wonder if you already sense the fallacy of logic within this statement?

[justinc]

I wonder if you already sense the fallacy of logic within this statement?

Bensalem asserted that only material things exist. I showed that love, justice and concepts are immaterial and exist. Therefore, Bensalems statement that matter is all that exists is false.

[justinc]

Put simply,

1. If materialism is true then nothing exists which is immaterial

2. Some things exist which are immaterial

Therefore, materialism is false

If you disagree with the conclusion, which of the two premises do you disagree with and why?

[Anddenex]

Bensalem asserted that only material things exist. I showed that love, justice and concepts are immaterial and exist. Therefore, Bensalems statement that matter is all that exists is false.

Incorrect, you likened abstract thoughts, words, which are constructs of the mind, to living matter, or matter in general. The only thing false is your premise.

The comparison is faulty.

[justinc]

Incorrect, you likened abstract thoughts, words, which are constructs of the mind, to living matter, or matter in general. The only thing false is your premise.

The comparison is faulty.

I was not making a comparison. Rather I was pointing out that some things are reality which are not material. Is it your position that love does not exist since it is immaterial? What about minds, are they nonexistant becouse they aren't physical?

[Anddenex]

I was not making a comparison. Rather I was pointing out that some things are reality which are not material. Is it your position that love does not exist since it is immaterial? What about minds, are they nonexistant becouse they aren't physical?

Yes, you were comparing Bensalem's words to cognitive constructs. Bensalem was speaking in reference to matter, and there is nothing that exists that isn't matter in the known universe.

Love, justice, compassion, mercy are immaterial. All things you mention as immaterial are concepts, personal interpretations.

Immaterial concepts are products of cognitive aspects of our intelligence.

People's intelligence differs in how they interpret love, justice, mercy, compassion, etc...

If God is then immaterial, then God is simply the by product of an individual's cognitiive process, thus there can not be "one true God" because he simply is the by product of a person's immaterial concepts. The Buddhist are correct. The Hindu's are correct. The Muslim's are correct. If all are correct, then "one true God" doesn't exist save only within the personal immaterial concepts one adheres to and abides by.

Our mind, is the product of our intelligence, which has existed eternally. Our intelligences are eternal elements of a fine spiritual matter. They are of the same spiritual matter of our Heavenly Father.

Yes, the mind exists, and yes the mind is matter. Without our intelligence their is no mind, there is no existence.

Thus, you say you were pointing out things are reality which are not material, then I ask you whose reality of love, justice... Hindu? Buddhist? Christian (the plethera of different Christian denominations and beliefs?) Muslim (conservative or radical? -- with all religions).

The reality you point to, as immaterial, is the by product of individual minds and beliefs. Your reality of immaterial places God in a realm of non-existence, merely the illusion of ones mind.

[justinc]

From what I understand so far, in your worldview, something must be material to exist - nothing exists which is not composed of physical matter. Which means everything that exists must be located in space and time, can be divided into further parts and has solidity. My first question would be, what good arguments are there that only material things exist and that spirit matter is actually real? One may easily assert that matter is all there is but what scientific experiment would lead to that conclusion? Neither is there evidence that such spirit matter exists. So for one to state "matter is all there is and spirit matter exists" seems unfounded. At least I am attempting to give reasons for my position but you must also bear the burden of proof for the materialist position.

The idea that matter is all that exists is question-begging. In your worldview there is no place for concepts, numbers, love etc since these are immaterial.

If the mind (awareness, sensation, thought, belief, desire) is material, how could we ever change our mind on anything since our thoughts would be made of matter, new matter would have to replace old matter which already makes up our physical mind. But if all the matter is replaced one by one we are no longer the same person.

If I take a chair made up of six parts (4 legs, seat & back) and everyday for six days I replace each part of the chair with an identical looking piece it's not the exact same chair as it was originally. I am told that every 7 years every single cell in the body replaces itself, yet I am still the same person, because there is something immaterial about me, namely, my mind.

If my mind is material and I am experiencing anger, then my mind molecules will be made up of say "angry matter". If I change to being happy, my mind molecules will be replaced by say "happy matter". But in so doing I loose my identity.

Nothing is by definition the complete absence of properties. So an immaterial being which has certain properties is not nothing and could exist. There is no logical impossibility of an unembodied mind, it is conceivable that such might exist.

It seems to me that the most reasonable explanation of the universe is an embodied mind. As I stated earlier:

Premise 1: Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause (either it must exist or something else caused it)

Premise 2: If the universe has an explanation of it's existence, that explanation is in an external cause, namely an unembodied mind

Premise 3: The Universe exists

Premise 4 (follows from 1&3): The Universe has an explanation of its existence

Conclusion (follows from 2&4): Therefore, the explanation of the universe is an unembodied mind

Which of the premises would you disagree with and why? (Since the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises)

One question shouldn't go unanswered, does a Latter-day Saint need to be a materialist? Or could they affirm the immateriality of the Spirit?