Spirit Matter

[Anddenex]

From what I understand so far, in your worldview, something must be material to exist - nothing exists which is not composed of physical matter.

This would be incorrect. All things were spiritual before they were physical. Thus there is spiritual matter as well as physical matter.

My first question would be, what good arguments are there that only material things exist and that spirit matter is actually real?

There are those who have seen, as already discussed in this thread, and have spoken with the creator of all things. Yes, at least to me, this provides a decent argument on behalf of our beliefs. The wonderful element of our beliefs is that Joseph Smith is not the only person to share this witness.

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.

What scientific experiment would lead to the discover of immaterial unembodied minds, as someone would say, the burden of proof for an immaterial position for God lies with you, you bear the burden of proof.

Thus, you stale mate the argument, yet LDS provide a witness from those who have actually seen a spiritual bodied God. Your worldview can not attest to such with an unembodied mind.

So for one to state "matter is all there is and spirit matter exists" seems unfounded.

Your worldview, in this light, has also given evidence to your premise of unembodied immaterial minds as unfounded.

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.

Incorrect, this is simply twisting my words to fit within your worldview. Love, numbers, concepts I have already shown to exist, as cognitive constructs, and thus you still bear the burden to proof why your immaterial construct is factual compared to another person cognitive construct.

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.

This statement assumes, implies, material objects are unable to change. This is simply disproven by the fact that I was once a child and now a man who also brings children into the world.

Not sure where you draw the conclusion that our thoughts are made of matter, but hey, stretching concepts isn't bad -- I suppose.

Indeed, through the atonement of Christ I am not the same person. He changes me. I am also not the same person I was when I was a child, nor am I the same person I was in appearance 10 years ago. Matter appears to change.

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.

What evidence, experiment, are you able to provide to certify this claim, this conclusion?

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

I understand from your worldview, however from the intellect of those who have actually seen and spoke with a bodied intelligence, well, this from my worldview is hard to accept. Thus the following premises would be incorrect save only God exists.

[Blackmarch]

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.

We dont know exactly how spirit matter relates to the physical matter that we are familiar with other than god sees it on the same spectrum or one is like the other.

Science wise weve found that matter is energy. Perhaps it isomething like that, or, perhaps the relationship is totallly different. We also know that about something like the majority of any given volume is empty space, so there is room for other things to share that given volume (which is why youll very rarely interact with any neutrinos shooting through you, if at all).

[justinc]

This would be incorrect. All things were spiritual before they were physical. Thus there is spiritual matter as well as physical matter.

Lets be careful how we define our terms. Matter by definition is physical, 'Spirit Matter' is therefore physical, just more "fine" (D&C 131:7). In other words, Spirit matter is so small we can never detect it. So again "in your worldview.. nothing exists which is not composed of physical matter."

There are those who have seen, as already discussed in this thread, and have spoken with the creator of all things. Yes, at least to me, this provides a decent argument on behalf of our beliefs. The wonderful element of our beliefs is that Joseph Smith is not the only person to share this witness.

On my view this would only show that immaterial minds can interact with the universe world using physical means. (Burning bush, pillar of cloud, fire, physical body etc).

What scientific experiment would lead to the discover of immaterial unembodied minds, as someone would say, the burden of proof for an immaterial position for God lies with you, you bear the burden of proof. Thus, you stale mate the argument, yet LDS provide a witness from those who have actually seen a spiritual bodied God. Your worldview can not attest to such with an unembodied mind.

We both have a burden of proof. You say "only matter exists" and that requires justification. I say "some things exist which are immaterial" and that too requires justification. One could choose to say "I dont know" and that would be a default middle position which does not require proof.

The evidence you have given is the testimony of those who claim personal experience with God.

Likewise I can also refer to historic testimony which suggests an immaterial God.

"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) [We should not create idols of God since he has no physical form, including male and female. If God is personal but has no physical form that suggests an unembodied mind.]

"God is a Spirit" (John 4:24) and "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" (Luke 24:39) [Although he may appear in such likeness, God does not have a body of flesh and bone.]

God has "created all things" (Revelations 4:11, Ephesians 3:9, Isaiah 44:24) [if God created all things, there was nothing already existing in order to create "all things". I take it that the universe (heavens and earth) is a thing and thus God created it. If the universe (the entirety of everything matter, space & time) was created by God he must by definition be immaterial, spaceless and timeless yet since he has properties he is not nothing, he would exist as an unembodied mind.]

God "calls things into existence that do not exist" (Romans 4:17) [This supports the above in that God has the ability to bring things into existence that do not exist. We do not have to had existed eternally.]

On top of historic testimony I have argued that our minds (which are basically consciousness, awareness, sensation, thought, belief, desire) are not material. Which one of these states of the mind is made of matter?

Your worldview, in this light, has also given evidence to your premise of unembodied immaterial minds as unfounded.

Its not a premise, rather the 'unembodied mind' is a conclusion of historic testimony about personal experience of God and the best explanation for the existence of the Universe.

Incorrect, this is simply twisting my words to fit within your worldview. Love, numbers, concepts I have already shown to exist, as cognitive constructs, and thus you still bear the burden to proof why your immaterial construct is factual compared to another person cognitive construct.

Are you saying immaterial experience and feeling of love is just an illusion?

This statement assumes, implies, material objects are unable to change. This is simply disproven by the fact that I was once a child and now a man who also brings children into the world.

But your material make-up has changed, every 7 years. I'm talking about the particles that make you physically who you are. 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". If all the particles that make up who I am are replaced I will end up being a different person.

Not sure where you draw the conclusion that our thoughts are made of matter, but hey, stretching concepts isn't bad -- I suppose.

So thoughts are not made of matter, I agree. The next question is do thoughts exist? If they do that implies "some things exist which are not made of matter".

What evidence, experiment, are you able to provide to certify this claim, this conclusion?

All I was saying is that it seems entirely possible that an unembodied mind could exist. I mean to say there is no logical contradiction. I would point again to an immaterial mind as the best explanation for the existence of the universe to justify the positive claim that an unembodied mind does exist.

I understand from your worldview, however from the intellect of those who have actually seen and spoke with a bodied intelligence, well, this from my worldview is hard to accept. Thus the following premises would be incorrect save only God exists.

So if God exists the premises I gave are true?

Also, does a Latter-day Saint need to be a materialist? Or could they affirm the immateriality of the Spirit?

[justinc]

P.S thanks for the dialogue everyone, I respect all the "we dont know" answers aswell.

[Traveler]

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.

Perhaps terms such as "natural laws", supernatural, and transcends are badly defined terms that in discussions between religion and science may cause more misunderstanding than understanding. Prior to the fall of Adam (man) the universe was not subject to death, sickness or decay. Thus the natural state of the universe we currently experience would be quite different than what G-d created initially. That G-d personally plays a conflicting role in relationship to governing principles - is in my mind the biggest failure of Trinitarian theory as well as conflict in understanding that science is able to see of parts of universe before or prior to when the fall took place. I see conflict in much of theology with observable that are ignored Traditional Christianity.

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.

The single most notable Ancient Near Eastern religion to Biblical documentation was centered in the epoch of Baal. But Baal was not actually a G-d but a demig-d (son of El and a mortal woman) that was given power over nature and as you imply - to transcended the laws of the physical universe. It is my understanding that this contributed to the conflict between Jesus and certain Jews as mentioned in John Chapter 10. Again a piece of history that seem to have been forgotten by Traditional Christians. The New Testament mentions what is noted as the influence of the Herodians that some historians reference as the pagination of Christianity.

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.

Could you be more explicit as to why you believe this?

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

In general - I understand the term "hypocrite" to describe someone that creates principles and laws to apply to someone else.

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)

In science the first definition of life is intelligence. Interesting to me this is also the first definition of life in LDS theology. However, I see several problems with you premises.

That creation was from nothing. The term of nothing in the scientific community has more than one meaning. One reference has been to an empty vacuum or place in space time. But quantum mechanics has demonstrated that even empty space time is filled with fascinating things that seem to wake havoc with the idea of nothing. Another concept of nothing is a dimensionless "singularity". In essence dimensionless being a un-distinguishable emptiness without time or unaltered in time. But to apply such definition and concepts to G-d - is most problematic in my mind - especially if G-d only existed prior to the creation of our universe.

The idea of an un-embodied mind is to me contrary to intelligent life - attributes I believe describe G-d. Thus I prefer to worship and intelligent - living G-d over a "nothing" un-embodied G-d of indistinguishable singularity - which I would consider inferior to pagan G-ds of nature personification.

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

I see such a notion of time to be quite archaic and medieval. Since Relativity science has defined time as and necessary construct of space time. This requires relationships with dimensional space as well as association with matter and energy.

In my view the Genesis account of creation is used by traditional Christianity to cause more confusion with reality than to assist in any kind of understanding. If you take a careful look at the creation steps of Day 3 and Day 4 you will realize how ancient Hebrew poetic structure clashes with modern thought. Do you believe for a moment that trees on earth have produced fruit without a sun?

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.

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!

No problem? I do not wish to respond in a manner that seem critical but I have discovered that most often the person that sees no problem with their understanding - is usually someone that does not understand much if anything. I see plenty of problems with my understanding - I hold to it only because I find other explanations that I have encountered so far - as much more problematic.

The Traveler

[justinc]

Perhaps terms such as "natural laws", supernatural, and transcends are badly defined terms that in discussions between religion and science may cause more misunderstanding than understanding.

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature

No one would claim that Jesus rose naturally from the dead after three days rather God intervened in the laws of nature to raise him to life. I must agree with Dallin H Oaks (mentioned earlier by Seminarysnoozer) who said

"Some prominent theologians teach that our secularized world needs “a new concept of God,” stripped of the supernatural... I believe some of us sometimes do the same thing in gospel teaching. We neglect to teach and testify to some simple, basic truths of paramount importance. This omission permits some members and nonmembers to get wrong ideas about our faith and belief."

Prior to the fall of Adam (man) the universe was not subject to death, sickness or decay. Thus the natural state of the universe we currently experience would be quite different than what G-d created initially.

Are you suggesting the Second Law of Thermodynamics was introduced to the universe only after the fall of Adam?

That G-d personally plays a conflicting role in relationship to governing principles - is in my mind the biggest failure of Trinitarian theory

Expand the thought for me. So far as I see there is no logical contradiction that three persons are one God. How do you understand 2 Nephi 31:21? "the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end."

Could you be more explicit as to why you believe this?

The author of Genesis, it seems, intends to teach that God brought order to the universe by dividing light from darkness etc. I dont think Genesis must be scientifically true but the author as I see intends to show God as the creator and the one who brings order and natural law etc to the heavens and the earth.

I see several problems with you premises.

That creation was from nothing.

This isn't one of the premises rather this is the implication of premise 2.

The term of nothing in the scientific community has more than one meaning. One reference has been to an empty vacuum or place in space time. But quantum mechanics has demonstrated that even empty space time is filled with fascinating things that seem to wake havoc with the idea of nothing. Another concept of nothing is a dimensionless "singularity". In essence dimensionless being a un-distinguishable emptiness without time or unaltered in time. But to apply such definition and concepts to G-d - is most problematic in my mind - especially if G-d only existed prior to the creation of our universe.

I am aware it happens in the Science world but it seems dishonest to say that something is nothing. Rather nothing is the absence of everything. God is not the absence of everything since God has properties. There is no law of logic that would require God to exist in some material form. I find it problematic that one can have thinking matter. I also don't know how a finite material being could have any effect on the larger cosmos as a whole.

Thus I prefer to worship and intelligent - living G-d over a "nothing" un-embodied G-d of indistinguishable singularity - which I would consider inferior to pagan G-ds of nature personification.

I too worship an intelligent living God. If God is good, all powerful & all-knowing then even if he is immaterial he still has properties and is not "nothing" since nothing is what rocks dream about, namely, nothing.

I see such a notion of time to be quite archaic and medieval. Since Relativity science has defined time as and necessary construct of space time. This requires relationships with dimensional space as well as association with matter and energy.

Of course, time must relate to the physical universe including space, matter & energy. Without such time would not exist. Hence Hawking can say that time began along with the universe.

In my view the Genesis account of creation is used by traditional Christianity to cause more confusion with reality than to assist in any kind of understanding. If you take a careful look at the creation steps of Day 3 and Day 4 you will realize how ancient Hebrew poetic structure clashes with modern thought. Do you believe for a moment that trees on earth have produced fruit without a sun?

I agree that Genesis is very metaphorical hence my earlier statement "Genesis, although very metaphorical suggests an ultimate beginning of time"

Edited May 13, 2013 by justinc

[justinc]

Does a Latter-day Saint need to believe that matter is all that exists? Or could they affirm the immateriality of the Spirit?

[Anddenex]

Lets be careful how we define our terms. Matter by definition is physical, 'Spirit Matter' is therefore physical, just more "fine" (D&C 131:7). In other words, Spirit matter is so small we can never detect it. So again "in your worldview.. nothing exists which is not composed of physical matter."

This again would be incorrect. This is implying your personal worldview on mine.

Doctrine and Covenants 88: 27, "For notwithstanding they die, they also shall arise again, a spiritual body." Not a physical body, but a spiritual body.

Please don't twist my worldview to fit within your current understandings so that you are able to confirm your worldview. Moses 3: 5, "For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth."

Likewise I can also refer to historic testimony which suggests an immaterial God.

Thus, anybody's worldview, is highly dependent on the testimony, a modern testimony, of Joseph Smith, and other's who have seen him today -- not a personal interpretation of the record given by ancient prophets.

Joseph Smith was either visited by God, the Father, and his son, Jesus Christ who appeared to him with spiritual bodies that he could touch and feel, or this was a blatant lie.

Others, today, who have also received witnessed, felt his scars, today, are either blatant lies or people telling the truth. Thus, the emphasis placed upon the first vision. This vision is either true or false, there can be no middle ground.

Some of the scriptures you share with quotes are not as point blank as you would like them to appear. Romans 4: 17, doesn't give evidence to what you have suggested, King James translation, "(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were."

Nothing in this verse implies, as you have declared, "[This supports the above in that God has the ability to bring things into existence that do not exist. We do not have to had existed eternally.]"

This verse supports that Abraham believed that even if he killed Isaac, that God would be able to quicken the dead (as he did with Lazarus) and revive Isaac, thus the statement "who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were." Calleth those who are not living, who be not, back into life.

This is also two fold which implies that he Lord is able to take a physical body, and quicken it in the resurrection and thus be raised a spiritual body.

On top of historic testimony I have argued that our minds (which are basically consciousness, awareness, sensation, thought, belief, desire) are not material. Which one of these states of the mind is made of matter?

Yet all these you specify "consciousness, awareness, sensation, thought, belief, desire" all stem from a body which is home to our brains (matter), which without you would not have any consciousness, awareness, sensation, thought, belief, or desire.

LDS theology, our spirits are intelligences, before life without a body. Our spirits, our intelligences, have already been discussed in this thread.

On both accounts, our worldview, matter is an aspect and the result of our personal awareness, without such, there is no life, no consciousness, no awareness, no sensation, thought, belief, etc...

Its not a premise, rather the 'unembodied mind' is a conclusion of historic testimony about personal experience of God and the best explanation for the existence of the Universe.

"The best" is a personal interpretation, stemming from your personal worldview, which isn't "the best" explanation.

The historic testimony provided is a personal interpretation from an individual who has never experienced God himself, never has he seen God himself, as a caveat, I am not expressing personal experience as through the Holy Ghost, but actually as Moses, as Abraham, as Jacob, as Peter, as Joseph Smith.

Our historic testimony, as Latter-day Saints, is also backed up by modern testimony of individuals who have had personal experience with God, who have seen God, and have verified that he is not an un-embodied spirit, but a being who we truly were made in the image of.

Are you saying immaterial experience and feeling of love is just an illusion?

A question a person might ask themselves, would they be able to experience love, justice, hate, envy, belief consciousness, without their physical body?

Are not our emotions a by-product of our genetics (material elements)? What you consider, in your worldview as immaterial, is actually a material experience. When we experience love, our heart races (a material response). Without this material response, would you be able to experience what you consider an "immaterial experience"?

I truly like the movie Matrix (for my LDS friends -- two words -- clean flicks), did those individuals within the matrix experience an illusion, or were they really experiencing life?

My worldview, to dumb down God in hopes to clarify "immaterial" existence with love, hate, etc... only verifies that God can be anything you want him to be, because love, hate, envy, joy, sadness, lust, are just a varied as there are people, and is totally looking beyond the mark.

All I was saying is that it seems entirely possible that an unembodied mind could exist. I mean to say there is no logical contradiction. I would point again to an immaterial mind as the best explanation for the existence of the universe to justify the positive claim that an unembodied mind does exist.

I understand this is according to the worldview you have created for yourself.

So if God exists the premises I gave are true?

No. I have already provided reasons for and why this would not be the case.

Also, does a Latter-day Saint need to be a materialist? Or could they affirm the immateriality of the Spirit?

All Latter-day Saints are able to believe or worship "how,where, or what they may," however, if a Latter-day Saint believed in the immateriality of the Spirit they then would need to find fault, or simply ignore,

"For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy"

Edited May 13, 2013 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

Science: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

Supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature

No one would claim that Jesus rose naturally from the dead after three days rather God intervened in the laws of nature to raise him to life. I must agree with Dallin H Oaks (mentioned earlier by Seminarysnoozer) who said

"Some prominent theologians teach that our secularized world needs “a new concept of God,” stripped of the supernatural... I believe some of us sometimes do the same thing in gospel teaching. We neglect to teach and testify to some simple, basic truths of paramount importance. This omission permits some members and nonmembers to get wrong ideas about our faith and belief."

Are you suggesting the Second Law of Thermodynamics was introduced to the universe only after the fall of Adam?

Expand the thought for me. So far as I see there is no logical contradiction that three persons are one God. How do you understand 2 Nephi 31:21? "the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end."

The author of Genesis, it seems, intends to teach that God brought order to the universe by dividing light from darkness etc. I dont think Genesis must be scientifically true but the author as I see intends to show God as the creator and the one who brings order and natural law etc to the heavens and the earth.

This isn't one of the premises rather this is the implication of premise 2.

I am aware it happens in the Science world but it seems dishonest to say that something is nothing. Rather nothing is the absence of everything. God is not the absence of everything since God has properties. There is no law of logic that would require God to exist in some material form. I find it problematic that one can have thinking matter. I also don't know how a finite material being could have any effect on the larger cosmos as a whole.

I too worship an intelligent living God. If God is good, all powerful & all-knowing then even if he is immaterial he still has properties and is not "nothing" since nothing is what rocks dream about, namely, nothing.

Of course, time must relate to the physical universe including space, matter & energy. Without such time would not exist. Hence Hawking can say that time began along with the universe.

I agree that Genesis is very metaphorical hence my earlier statement "Genesis, although very metaphorical suggests an ultimate beginning of time"

In the discussion between science and religion - science has for centuries shown that there are logical explanations for things that conform to the natural laws and principles that can be observed (by those that wish to do so) in our universe. In essence the necessity for a supernatural G-d was first challenged by Galileo. Since then logic and understanding has overcome superstitions relying only on the fantastic and mystic. However, rather than embrace simple truths - theologians have been dragged to truth kicking and screaming at every turn. I simply do not understand why someone that love and embraces G-d would have such problems but it does seem to me that human superstitions and not pure religion and divine revelation are the real enemies of truth.

Science can currently demonstrate that the universe can be created and come about without any violations of known laws and principles that continue to govern and sustain our universe. If theologians insist that G-d is supernatural in order to have created and sustain our universe they are compelled to demonstrate or show evidence for such thinking of which there are two possibilities - scientific or credible reference to ancient religious documents that are compatible to our understanding and interpretation of such things - or admit that ancient scripture is insufficient or incomplete to conclude such a task. (As a side note: the LDS stand is essentially that both the scientific and religious understanding of man is insufficient and incomplete and that we are dependent still on G-d to reveal new things both important and necessary in order to put all the pieces of the puzzle together.)

As to the notion of creation from nothing - Science has demonstrated that such a notion is not necessary as well as contrary to the laws and principles to which the universe is presently governed and I have seen absolutely nothing from the religious community in addressing science that would remotely suggest a scientific possibility.

So let us consider this notion from a religious stand point.

There are only two possibilities - that G-d created all things from nothing or something existed before creation that G-d did not create. At this point I will draw upon scripture that informs us that G-d is not respecter of persons. I conclude from that notion that what G-d does for one individual he does for all. And I submit this is a critical and important notion necessary to understand G-d's creation of man.

So the question is: From where do the differences in individuals have origins? For example from where does man's will (or free will) come? If it is contrary for G-d to create or give one person "will" that he does not give another or that is different from any other individual - from where did it come? This extends directly into individual proclivity to seek out G-d, repent and embrace salvation.

If all things come directly from G-d and there is no other possibility - how is it that G-d can judge man? How is it that one individual can be deemed different than another? How is it that G-d is not a respecter of one of his creation of man over another when there is no other possible input than what G-d created?

In short if G-d created all things from nothing then the scripture are false and lie in teaching that G-d is not a respecter of persons.

The Traveler

[Matthew0059]

Seminarysnoozer, because you've taken the time to quote prophets, I will take the time to respond to each quote in turn, but the answer is the same in all cases: what they mean by "supernatural" and I meant by "supernatural" aren't the same. Referring to the definition I used earlier, they use "supernatural" as "[a]ttributed to some force beyond scientific understanding", not "[a]ttributed to some force... beyond the laws of nature.

To further clarify, when I use the phrase "laws of nature", I don't mean the same thing as the "natural" man. Using how they are defined in the scriptures, these "laws of nature" I talk about would be more accurately called the "laws of God", "eternal law", etc.

If we spoke the pure language of Adam, this wouldn't be an issue and we'd more readily understand each other.

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.

If the "grace of God" was the help President Snow acknowledged would be needed, that help would come according to the laws of God (or the "laws of nature"). God could not give help in some way that is contrary to the established way that He operates and indeed *must* operate; if He tried that He would "cease to be God". Therefore what was meant by President Snow was that God's help would come in ways that modern science could not anticipate nor explain; "beyond scientific understanding".

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."

Here President Oaks reflects the great dilemma we're facing right now: the scientists of the world are rejecting "supernatural" explanations and only believing the things that they can see with their carnal eyes. They reject the things of the Spirit, which are fine and discerned by the spiritual man, and therefore reject the idea of a God they cannot presently see, hear, or touch. Humanity is on the cusp of possibly re-entering another Dark Ages- this time not of religious tyranny fueled by irrational dogma, but anti-religious tyranny fueled by blind materialism (or more precisely, "temporalism").

What is going on here is that two separate ideas- that the Christian God exists, and that He exists outside of time and space- have been connected together when they ought not to have been. Christ's commandment not to separate what God has joined together has both a corollary- do not join together what God has separated- and a spiritual implication; to not marry ideas together that don't belong together. Joining two ideas together that don't belong leads to a rejection of both ideas once one is proven false. The only way to avoid that is to have the sharp Word of God separate the two. Rejecting that Word of God leads to spiritual damnation because you don't believe the saving truth that you've connected to a damning lie.

It is for this reason that men believe lies and disbelieve the truth; they believe a half-truth and when the lie within the truth is exposed, they reject the truth as well.

Putting the philosophy aside; again Elder Oaks' usage of "supernatural" can again be said to reflect the first part of the definition I used in my last post, and not the second one.

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. …"

I don't have the full context for this quote, so I might be wrong- but from what you've posted, this seems to be the context: here Marion G. Romney connects the word "supernatural" with manifestations of forces which work contrary to the power of the Holy Ghost; the power of the devil and counterfeits to God's power. That's not really evidence for believing that God works according to laws contrary to the earth we live on.

Also, the difference between that which acts versus that which is acted upon has to do with agency and accountability, just to be clear.

I cited that verse only as evidence that there are two basic types of things, that which acts and that which is acted upon. It is the D&C that we find the names for those things (spirit and element), that both things are ultimately the same type of "thing" (matter) with some kind of key difference, and the rest.

I find a few of your assertions in this last paragraph mostly to be opinions not backed up by scripture, but by assumption and cultural opinions. I would like you to produce scriptural evidence for the following, if you can:

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.

How do you know the virus isn't responsible for its actions? Are you 100% certain viruses don't have any degree of intelligence or will?

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.

Can you prove that with the scriptures? If matter acts according to natural laws ("God's law") is there absolutely no degree of intelligence involved- or can the "acting" of animals, viruses, etc. be chalked up to a certain type or degree of intelligence? If it can, then, can those animals, viruses, etc. act contrary to what God's law is?

If it is true that all matter is coupled with spirit (and it is- read the creation accounts, and you find that God created all things in heaven before they were created on the earth), then all matter- even the so-called inanimate rocks, dust, etc.- has a capacity for intelligence and a capacity for action and, therefore, a capacity for inaction. When a virus attacks someone, that is because the virus acted according to the laws that govern its existence. Yet God can use even His power- which is also governed by law- to cause a virus *not* to kill someone; to heal that person.

[Matthew0059]

I am running short on time now, so I don't have time to cite this post as well as I'd like, nor will it be as fleshed out as I'd like it to be. It also may be the last response in this thread, as I have a very full week coming and I try to devote my full energy to a response while writing.

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).

I don't speak Hebrew myself, but from what I've read in the past there's a debate about what the Hebrew Genesis (and the rest of the scriptures) really meant by the word "create". Creating the world out of chaos doesn't mean He created it out of "nothing", ex nihilo, but that He organized the existing chaos. If it existed before He organized/created it, then it existed prior to the "creation"- just in a different form.

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 LDS believe the Apocrypha- which includes Maccabees- contains both truth and error, as do many protestant traditions. From what I've read, this account in 2 Maccabees is one of the most "concrete" "proofs" of ex nihilo in the Bible. Yet it is written in and describes a time of Jewish subjugation to the Greeks- whence the doctrine of ex nihilo comes. Questionable origins and context is enough to rule this out as authoritative.

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"

I don't doubt Gamaliel believed it, but judging from the fact that he was a prominent teacher, leader, and philosopher of a religious movement diametrically opposed to Christ and with strong ties to Greek philosophy, we should be wary about assuming anything he said 100% represents the truth about how Moses and the prophets viewed the creation. While he clearly was a benefit to the Apostles at a crucial moment, he could (and did) believe erroneous things. I'm going to say this is one of them.

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

The D&C also plainly state that "Man is spirit" as well (D&C 93:33). God and man are spirit- because all spirit is matter and forms the crucial element of man-- and God's-- existence. Take the body away from a man and he still has his spirit left; take a man's spirit away and the body has no identity, it's just formless "stuff" with no purpose.

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.

This is actually an interesting event. There are two things to note here:

1) Bear in mind that God always speaks to His children according to their understanding and knowledge. His statement reflects not necessarily the fact that spirits absolutely cannot have flesh and bones, but that his apostles believed either that a) no spirit can have flesh or bones, or b) His spirit could not have flesh and bones, because He was dead. The doctrine of Christ's resurrection was poorly understood at the time He made this statement, and the purpose of His declaration was to show He did indeed have a physical body, and that it was truly Him.

2) There are spirits that don't have bodies- in LDS vernacular, they are called "unembodied" or "disembodied" spirits. The devils that could possess and be cast out of human beings and animals are one type of disembodied spirit.

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]

I'm really not qualified to discuss this issue without reading into it more, which unfortunately I don't have time to do at the moment. I do know, however, that many of the theorems and proofs are based on complex mathematics that don't always jive with reality, or each other. The underlying problem is that there are factors and truths unknown at the present time that affect the real explanation of the situation.

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)."

While I agree with some of Bailey's ideas (particularly about the definition of the word "eternal", and the idea of God residing in the observable universe), but I don't agree with the usage of the Big Bang as the starting point of the universe. While it is possible some kind of creative event happened roughly 15 billion years ago, that doesn't require that matter came into existence ex nihilo 15 billion years ago. Furthermore, the alternate definition of "eternal", found in D&C 19:6-12, has nothing to do with time or man's comprehension of it. It doesn't even have to do with any quantitative measurement; instead it is qualitative:

10 ...Endless is [God's] name. Wherefore—

11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

"Eternal" and "endless" become qualitative descriptors of God's attributes and actions, instead of a quantitative descriptor of how long the universe has existed.

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.

Man cannot count or understand the sheer quantity of God's works- that I agree with Bailey on. Yet to God, all His works (and the time those events took place in) are numbered; God knows how long this organizational process has been going on.

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.

And Jesus was a carpenter, Moses was a nobleman, Abraham was a shepherd; Socrates was a soldier, Aristotle was a schoolteacher... If we use your example, then unless you're a recognized priest you have no right to speak on religion or the metaphysical at all either. And then we have to hash out which religion's priest you are, and why your religion is greater than all the others, etc.

In other words, you can't divide people into their professions and then say they have no right or ability to speak on something outside of that profession. Hawking claims to, through his chosen field (physics), be able to prove that God isn't necessary to the existence of the universe, the earth, or us. He is also an eminent authority in the public's eye, and a man with great influence. Many people will believe him.

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)

So long as you will stand with me in that knowledge and seek after the things of God, I will stand with you.

I may not have another chance to write, so let me tell you why I believe in the LDS faith. It is not because of this discussion's topics, or any related reason. It isn't because I see a theoretical or intellectual beauty in the doctrine (although I do). It isn't because my parents were LDS (although they are). I believe because when I was 17, the Lord touched my life in a very personal way. I experienced firsthand that God cares for His children because He spoke to me via vision and revelation, and that day was the turning point for my life. Since then I have received innumerable witnesses that God is love, and cares for all His children. Among those witnesses is that Jesus is the Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, and that the Book of Mormon is a factually correct historical record and also contains the fulness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

God has organized my life out of the chaos of a terrible childhood, and led me by the hand through difficult trials to emerge victorious every time, despite numerous smaller defeats. This process continues today. I have learned to listen to the Spirit of the Holy Ghost, and it has taught me great things about the world and how people interact; it whispers about things both in heaven and things in earth. It teaches me to be patient and continually seek His face, to knock and ask so that doors may be opened to me, that I may receive. It teaches me how to be a better son and brother, a better friend, a wise counselor and effective servant.

I hope the Lord blesses your life as He has blessed mine, and that we meet within the walls of Zion and see eye to eye on these and other subjects.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Matthew0059

[Seminarysnoozer]

How do you know the virus isn't responsible for its actions? Are you 100% certain viruses don't have any degree of intelligence or will?

Can you prove that with the scriptures? If matter acts according to natural laws ("God's law") is there absolutely no degree of intelligence involved- or can the "acting" of animals, viruses, etc. be chalked up to a certain type or degree of intelligence? If it can, then, can those animals, viruses, etc. act contrary to what God's law is?

If it is true that all matter is coupled with spirit (and it is- read the creation accounts, and you find that God created all things in heaven before they were created on the earth), then all matter- even the so-called inanimate rocks, dust, etc.- has a capacity for intelligence and a capacity for action and, therefore, a capacity for inaction. When a virus attacks someone, that is because the virus acted according to the laws that govern its existence. Yet God can use even His power- which is also governed by law- to cause a virus *not* to kill someone; to heal that person.

I will respond to the other parts when I have time. Thanks for your response.

If a person has Tourette's and yells out a swear word in the middle of a temple session is that what acts or what is acting upon that yelled out?

If a person has Bipolar disease and runs out into the middle of an intersection threatening the cars going by with his clothes off (real situation of a member of the church) and the police have to tazer him to stop, is that what acts or is that what is acted upon that makes that action?

Is a child who dies before the age of 8 not held accountable for her actions because of what acts or what is acted upon? In other words what is different about their being once they reach the age of 8, did the spirit change or the body?

I think we are talking about semantics. I am trying to express that the "laws that govern its existence" referring to the virus that kills, is the thing that is acted upon. Those laws outline what acts and what is acted upon. And within those laws, what is outlined is what intelligence is held accountable for their actions and which ones aren't. Or do you think the virus intelligence is undergoing a second estate test? I don't think those intelligences that you are referring to, the ones pertaining to rocks, dust etc. had the capability of passing a first estate test and therefore are not in line to undergo a second estate test because they are not trying to become "actors" or greater responsibility. They are meeting what they are designed to do. Whereas we are here under probation to be tested for greater stewardship.

To undergo the test there has to be things that act and things that are acted upon. A virus intelligence (if there is such a thing) could not go on to greater responsibility, it has reached its fullness. It cannot fail to do what it is designed to do and therefore cannot succeed either; so it cannot "act". But as an entity that is acted upon it could be used for good or evil depending on those spirits that can act use it. Such as infecting someone with the AIDS virus versus genetic therapies. The intelligence inside a rock (if there is such a thing) and the rock itself could be acted upon, such as in David's sling or it could be used to stone the prophets. It is acted upon but not held accountable for its movement or actions in this world. We have these things all around us so that the only thing in this world that is under trial, sons and daughters of God, can be tested by their actions. You tell me where it says in the scriptures that other entities are under a second estate probation.

[Traveler]

I will respond to the other parts when I have time. Thanks for your response.

If a person has Tourette's and yells out a swear word in the middle of a temple session is that what acts or what is acting upon that yelled out?

If a person has Bipolar disease and runs out into the middle of an intersection threatening the cars going by with his clothes off (real situation of a member of the church) and the police have to tazer him to stop, is that what acts or is that what is acted upon that makes that action?

Is a child who dies before the age of 8 not held accountable for her actions because of what acts or what is acted upon? In other words what is different about their being once they reach the age of 8, did the spirit change or the body?

I think we are talking about semantics. I am trying to express that the "laws that govern its existence" referring to the virus that kills, is the thing that is acted upon. Those laws outline what acts and what is acted upon. And within those laws, what is outlined is what intelligence is held accountable for their actions and which ones aren't. Or do you think the virus intelligence is undergoing a second estate test? I don't think those intelligences that you are referring to, the ones pertaining to rocks, dust etc. had the capability of passing a first estate test and therefore are not in line to undergo a second estate test because they are not trying to become "actors" or greater responsibility. They are meeting what they are designed to do. Whereas we are here under probation to be tested for greater stewardship.

To undergo the test there has to be things that act and things that are acted upon. A virus intelligence (if there is such a thing) could not go on to greater responsibility, it has reached its fullness. It cannot fail to do what it is designed to do and therefore cannot succeed either; so it cannot "act". But as an entity that is acted upon it could be used for good or evil depending on those spirits that can act use it. Such as infecting someone with the AIDS virus versus genetic therapies. The intelligence inside a rock (if there is such a thing) and the rock itself could be acted upon, such as in David's sling or it could be used to stone the prophets. It is acted upon but not held accountable for its movement or actions in this world. We have these things all around us so that the only thing in this world that is under trial, sons and daughters of God, can be tested by their actions. You tell me where it says in the scriptures that other entities are under a second estate probation.

Just a side note. I do not see anything supernatural or contrary to principles and laws established by G-d. It is interesting to me that many times Jesus said that the faith of the person is what made them whole. It could be debated if Jesus or the person's faith in Jesus is the greater contribution - but such a discussion has little to do with governing principles with one glaring exception.

Jesus paid for man's sins (sicknesses) in a very difficult way - even for him it was contrary to his will. If Jesus (G-d) was able to suspend and transcend laws and principles at will (an attribute of a supernatural being) or if such was his usual character or attribute, it would seem rather foolish to put himself through such pain and suffering and make a big deal about it, since it would in reality be completely unnecessary and just a matter of suspending or transcending such principles and laws or anything else that was inconvenient or difficult.

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

Just a side note. I do not see anything supernatural or contrary to principles and laws established by G-d.

The Traveler

Who is saying that "supernatural" means something that is contrary to the laws of God?

I am not following that line of thought either.

God's laws are the all encompassing laws. Within those laws can be a set that we call "laws of nature" that may be unique to a fallen world. With that in mind, there are principles and laws and "mysteries" (since I know you like that word, :)) that do not pertain to this world or are not used here. It is just a matter of semantics, if you want to call those laws and principles supernatural or mysteries of God or celestial laws, etc. Whatever the name, they are things that are not obtainable while being in a fallen state.

[Seminarysnoozer]

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.

I reread your statement here. I think the use of the word "supernatural" is problematic for you because you chose to describe "laws of nature" as "really the laws of God or the laws of heaven". That is where you and I probably differ in our beliefs.

I do not see heaven and earth as operating under the same laws. That is not to say that they are incompatible. I am simply saying that they are not the same. For purposes of discussion, if you are not willing to separate those laws pertaining to a fallen world with those of heaven then you tell me what word you would use for "things measurable by earthly science" or "things measured by man". To me, the word "nature" or the natural man or carnal or worldly would be fine.

My eight year old daughter plays soccer. Even at my age, I play soccer on a women's league. The game is the same game but different rules apply. My daughter plays with 6 girls per side, there is no off-sides and they cannot slide tackle, for example. Whereas, when I play there is off-sides, there are 11 per side and one can slide tackle. My daughter cannot play by my rules. They are inaccessible to her at this time. They are different but not incompatible. If my league were to tone down our rules then it would not operate the same, the level of play would be way different.

Likewise, God cannot perform Celestial acts (not all of them - just some limited ones) in a fallen world. If you don't want to call those differences supernatural then fine, give me the word.

[Traveler]

I reread your statement here. I think the use of the word "supernatural" is problematic for you because you chose to describe "laws of nature" as "really the laws of God or the laws of heaven". That is where you and I probably differ in our beliefs.

I do not see heaven and earth as operating under the same laws. That is not to say that they are incompatible. I am simply saying that they are not the same. For purposes of discussion, if you are not willing to separate those laws pertaining to a fallen world with those of heaven then you tell me what word you would use for "things measurable by earthly science" or "things measured by man". To me, the word "nature" or the natural man or carnal or worldly would be fine.

My eight year old daughter plays soccer. Even at my age, I play soccer on a women's league. The game is the same game but different rules apply. My daughter plays with 6 girls per side, there is no off-sides and they cannot slide tackle, for example. Whereas, when I play there is off-sides, there are 11 per side and one can slide tackle. My daughter cannot play by my rules. They are inaccessible to her at this time. They are different but not incompatible. If my league were to tone down our rules then it would not operate the same, the level of play would be way different.

Likewise, God cannot perform Celestial acts (not all of them - just some limited ones) in a fallen world. If you don't want to call those differences supernatural then fine, give me the word.

It may be helpful if you provided a principle and law "of nature" that you believe to be different. It may be semantics but I think you may be confusing natural law of physics with social covenants that define a "kingdom".

Just like no social law of covenant of a dictatorship, kingdom or democracy is going to change the value of pi regardless of if one abides in heaven or outer darkness.

The Traveler

[Blackmarch]

Does a Latter-day Saint need to believe that matter is all that exists? Or could they affirm the immateriality of the Spirit?

Nope. About the core of beliefs are that God exists, christ is his Son and that Christ atoned for us, and that God restored his church to us and that we currently have prophets that that are authorized to speak and act in Gods name (usually goes hand in hand with the belief that the scriptures that we use are true as well).

[justinc]

Doctrine and Covenants 88: 27, "For notwithstanding they die, they also shall arise again, a spiritual body." Not a physical body, but a spiritual body.

But the Doctrine & Covenants teaches

"All spirit is matter" - D&C 131:7

Matter by definition is Physical

Thus D&C teaches that Spirit is physical. The distinction you need to make is between the physical-spirit body and the physical-flesh&bone body. This is sort of irrelevant, though it is useful to understand these things in dialogue.

Romans 4: 17, doesn't give evidence to what you have suggested.. Nothing in this verse implies, as you have declared

The passage is making a statement about God, namely, that he gives life to the dead and he brings into being things which do not exist. Furthermore the other passages I think are even clearer, these you did not address.

Yet all these you specify "consciousness, awareness, sensation, thought, belief, desire" all stem from a body which is home to our brains (matter), which without you would not have any consciousness, awareness, sensation, thought, belief, or desire.

...

A question a person might ask themselves, would they be able to experience love, justice, hate, envy, belief consciousness, without their physical body?

Are not our emotions a by-product of our genetics (material elements)? What you consider, in your worldview as immaterial, is actually a material experience. When we experience love, our heart races (a material response). Without this material response, would you be able to experience what you consider an "immaterial experience"?

Stem from? or Interact with?

Ill say it again briefly, A chair is made up of six parts (4 legs, seat & back). If everyday for six days I replace each part of the chair with an identical looking part do I have the same chair after six days? No.

To help expand, think about the following question. Could the cotton socks I am wearing have been made out of polyester. It seems plausible. But that's not what I am asking. Rather what I am asking is could these socks - the ones that are made out of cotton - could these particular cotton socks have been made out of polyester? Well of course not otherwise they wouldn't be "the cotton socks I'm wearing".

So after six days of replacing the parts of the chair, even though we have an identical chair we do not have the exact same chair as we did before (since all those particular parts have been dismantled and are somewhere else).

Every seven years every cell in my body is replaced with a new cell. Does that mean I am not the same person every seven years? Well, it depends.

If I have an immaterial mind which interacts with the material body then I am still the same person.

If on the other hand I am only matter, I must be a different person every seven years since matter alone is my identity in a materialist worldview. This view to me seems unreasonable.

"The best" is a personal interpretation, stemming from your personal worldview, which isn't "the best" explanation.

If the Universe (all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos) has an external explanation for its existence, that explanation must be immaterial and spaceless (since it created matter and space - the Universe). The only immaterial, spaceless thing I can think of which could stand in causal relations would be an unembodied mind. Since there is no logical contradiction about a mind existing apart from the body then this seems to best the best explanation for the Universe. [This paragraph sums up Premise 2 of the logical argument given earlier]

Now you may still contend that there is some natural contradiction about a mind existing apart from the body but this isnt a problem since the mind would be supernatural, beyond nature since it is the creator of nature itself - the creator of the Universe. People are regularly reporting having experienced awareness when they come back from the dead on the operating table. In some cases they are even wired up to show there is no brain activity.

Our historic testimony, as Latter-day Saints, is also backed up by modern testimony of individuals who have had personal experience with God, who have seen God, and have verified that he is not an un-embodied spirit, but a being who we truly were made in the image of.

These individuals may have experienced a physical appearance of God (how can I deny or affirm an experience claimed in private). But this again misses the point, earlier I mentioned that these physical experiences could be the way in which the immaterial being interacts with the physical universe.

[justinc]

rather than embrace simple truths - theologians have been dragged to truth kicking and screaming at every turn.

I would be interested on your views regarding Macro Evolution? Was Bruce R. McConkie 'kicking & screaming' when he said "There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution."?

Science can currently demonstrate that the universe can be created and come about without any violations of known laws and principles that continue to govern and sustain our universe.

But if the Universe (all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos) came into existence it necessarily must have had a immaterial, spaceless cause, for something cannot cause itself.

As to the notion of creation from nothing - Science has demonstrated that such a notion is not necessary as well as contrary to the laws and principles to which the universe is presently governed and I have seen absolutely nothing from the religious community in addressing science that would remotely suggest a scientific possibility.

You note 'creation from nothing is contrary to the laws to which the Universe is governed' (paraphrase). Creation from nothing is the beginning of the Universe and therefore implies a beginning to the 'laws' at the same time. Thus there is no problem.

There are only two possibilities - that G-d created all things from nothing or something existed before creation that G-d did not create.

Agreed.

At this point I will draw upon scripture that informs us that G-d is not respecter of persons. I conclude from that notion that what G-d does for one individual he does for all. And I submit this is a critical and important notion necessary to understand G-d's creation of man.

So the question is: From where do the differences in individuals have origins? For example from where does man's will (or free will) come? If it is contrary for G-d to create or give one person "will" that he does not give another or that is different from any other individual - from where did it come? This extends directly into individual proclivity to seek out G-d, repent and embrace salvation.

If all things come directly from G-d and there is no other possibility - how is it that G-d can judge man? How is it that one individual can be deemed different than another? How is it that G-d is not a respecter of one of his creation of man over another when there is no other possible input than what G-d created?

I must admit, I'm a little confused here. Basically, either God created all things or he used preexisting material in creation.

The simple answer would be God "created all things" (Eph 3:9) which implies there was no preexisting material.

If matter has existed in time forever then matter has endured an infinite number of moments which is impossible. To say that matter has existed forever is like saying someone has counted down from minus infinity -∞ and arriving at 0 (today). But it is impossible to cross infinity ∞. Suppose I start counting 1, 2, 3, 4.... etc you could stop me at any moment and I could give you a finite number. No matter how long ago I started counting I will still be infinitely far away from reaching infinity (since I will be able to +1 forever). It doesn't matter how long I count for I will always still be counting some growing finite number regardless of how high in numbers I get. If I cant go from 0 to positive infinity +∞, I could never go from minus infinity -∞ to 0 because its the same length. Trying to cross positive infinity is like trying to jump out of an infinity tall pit where the walls go literally forever - there is no edge to these walls they would go forever. Trying to cross negative infinity is like trying to jump out of a pit with no bottom on it - you cant even get going. Thus matter must have come into existence at some point.

[Anddenex]

But the Doctrine & Covenants teaches

"All spirit is matter" - D&C 131:7

Matter by definition is Physical

Thus D&C teaches that Spirit is physical. The distinction you need to make is between the physical-spirit body and the physical-flesh&bone body. This is sort of irrelevant, though it is useful to understand these things in dialogue.

Incorrect again. This is according to your worldview, not the actual truth being taught. Already shared scripture, yet you want to ignore what doesn't fit your worldview, and then again imply meaning where there isn't one.

The D&C doesn't teach that the Spirit is physical, it very well teaches it is spiritual, not physical. Do you like to ignore other scripture which prove your understanding incorrect?

This is similar to individuals who try to use the Book of Mormon as evidence that it teaches, in totality, against polygamy while ignoring others verses which provide further understanding.

Your fixation with one verse isn't helping your understanding, nor is your willingness to ignore other verse.

The passage is making a statement about God, namely, that he gives life to the dead and he brings into being things which do not exist. Furthermore the other passages I think are even clearer, these you did not address.

Which doesn't support your theory, because "brings into being things which do not exist" is not mentioned in the scripture; thus, it is your personal interpretation.

Not so, the other passages do not support your claim either.

Now you may still contend that there is some natural contradiction about a mind existing apart from the body but this isnt a problem since the mind would be supernatural, beyond nature since it is the creator of nature itself - the creator of the Universe. People are regularly reporting having experienced awareness when they come back from the dead on the operating table. In some cases they are even wired up to show there is no brain activity.

Incorrect, I am not contending against a mind without a body, I am contending against an "immaterial un-embodied mind" let us not confuse the two.

We were spirits, "all spirit is matter," (as you are fixated with) which did not have a body. As already discussed we were intelligences that exist of elements which are eternal.

As discussed in my first response to you, Ether Chapter 3, specifies the "spirit body" of Jehovah before he took a tabernacle of flesh.

Again, I contend against an "immaterial un-embodied mind" not a "mind existing apart from the body."

These individuals may have experienced a physical appearance of God (how can I deny or affirm an experience claimed in private).

This is an interesting statement coming from a Christian who accepts the private and personal experiences of a record more than 2000 years old.

Thus it appears you already "confirm" and do not "deny" these experiences which were claimed in private, or do you believe Moses had many witnesses on Mt. Sinai? When Jacob wrestled with an angel, a private experience, were you there or anybody else?

Yet, again, you "confirm" these stories as truth, which happened in private. The resurrection and Christ meeting with his twelve apostles, in a house, was this private? It would appear God works within the private experiences of his disciples and servants.

But this again misses the point, earlier I mentioned that these physical experiences could be the way in which the immaterial being interacts with the physical universe.

Oh no justinc, this is very relevant, because if Joseph Smith and others experienced what they experienced, as other prophets private experiences shared with men, then the idea of an "immaterial un-embodied mind" proves to be incorrect and bears no weight in truth.

Whose experience, whose explanation would I accept, the person who experienced it, or the person who is trying to add unto the experience of another, by saying "maybe this is the way an "immaterial un-embodied mind" interacts with us.

Edited May 14, 2013 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

I would be interested on your views regarding Macro Evolution? Was Bruce R. McConkie 'kicking & screaming' when he said "There is no harmony between the truths of revealed religion and the theories of organic evolution."?

It is my opinion that evolution is an observable process of life. Brother McConkie is entitled to his human opinions as are you and I. In LDS theology there is no separate clergy class and every individual that takes upon them the covenants with G-d is as entitled to understanding and revelation as another. Sometimes within the structure of the LDS priesthood organization G-d utilizes and inspires individuals within their sustained callings to assist him in his work. It is my opinion that Brother McConkie was speaking, at least in part from his own mind concerning evolution. It was a common doctrine in the religious community of his time that it was impossible to believe in evolution and G-d.

Concerning evolution - I would point out that you were initially created as a single cell creature called a zygote. Then over a process of change (by definition evolution is change) that single cell will evolve into a creature of billions of cells of many varieties and various specialties resulting in eyes, skin, bones, hair, teeth, hands, brains and so on.

There is no indication that any living human currently in existence was created in any other process or method. Those that to not believe man is created by evolution simply are out of touch with reality and refuse to see what is obvious before their very eyes. If you personally believe that Adam was created through another process or method than you were created; I would be interested where you acquired such a notion. I find noting in scripture that indicates that G-d changes his basic processes or methods -- perhaps he learned a more suitable way to create humans? It appears to me such notions are pure heresy. If you think creation has changed - how is that different from believing that you, because you were created differently, really is not a creation of G-d. Thus I find that those that understand how evolution is involved in their creation but do not believe that G-d creates through the use of evolution are misled in this understanding. But the times of ignorance - G-d will wink at but when one in introduced to truth -- G-d commands repentance.

But if the Universe (all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos) came into existence it necessarily must have had a immaterial, spaceless cause, for something cannot cause itself.

The idea that space time is a static thing and was created from nothing sometime ago is a medieval concept that has been proven false. Let me say again "PROVEN". Our cosmos is expanding and more space time is being created even as we speak. Not only is the universe expanding but that expansion is accelerating. In essence there is in our universe endless beginnings. There is stuff now in existence that was not created at what we think of as the beginning of the universe. I find the LDS concept remarkable able to absorb the truths we are now encountering. You really ought to approach the wonders of our universe more as a child willing to learn - I apologize if this appears to be personally critical -- I only hope to open you eyes to things you (and many others) may not have previously considered.

You note 'creation from nothing is contrary to the laws to which the Universe is governed' (paraphrase). Creation from nothing is the beginning of the Universe and therefore implies a beginning to the 'laws' at the same time. Thus there is no problem.

I pointed out one problem that you did not address. The problem that G-d is not a respecter of persons. How do you account for differences - especially in the final judgment and salvation. If G-d did not create something different (which would be contrary to the scriptures that G-d is not a respecter of persons) in that those persons that accept G-d and are saved from sin - then where did that difference come from?

I must admit, I'm a little confused here. Basically, either God created all things or he used preexisting material in creation.

Material is another state of power or energy - Are you saying that G-d had no access to any already existing power before creation? That is absurd.

The simple answer would be God "created all things" (Eph 3:9) which implies there was no preexisting material.

If matter has existed in time forever then matter has endured an infinite number of moments which is impossible. To say that matter has existed forever is like saying someone has counted down from minus infinity -∞ and arriving at 0 (today). But it is impossible to cross infinity ∞. Suppose I start counting 1, 2, 3, 4.... etc you could stop me at any moment and I could give you a finite number. No matter how long ago I started counting I will still be infinitely far away from reaching infinity (since I will be able to +1 forever). It doesn't matter how long I count for I will always still be counting some growing finite number regardless of how high in numbers I get. If I cant go from 0 to positive infinity +∞, I could never go from minus infinity -∞ to 0 because its the same length. Trying to cross positive infinity is like trying to jump out of an infinity tall pit where the walls go literally forever - there is no edge to these walls they would go forever. Trying to cross negative infinity is like trying to jump out of a pit with no bottom on it - you cant even get going. Thus matter must have come into existence at some point.

Again you thinking is medieval - in fact worse when it comes to number theory. With each integer (or counting) number you referenced there are between each and infinite number (∞) of rational numbers as well as an infinite number or irrational numbers.

Archimedes devised a similar thought that before an arrow could leave a bow it must travel the distance to which it leaves the bow, but before it could do that it must travel half the distance and before that half the half the distance and so on - and this process can continue infinite number of times. Thus the arrow can never leave the bow. Obviously G-d who is infinite is a living G-d (Jesus Christ) in time and was never created? but is eternal and infinite? Your premiss and logic fails the example (G-d) that we can both agree upon as something that has always existed. Until you can provide an example that proves your theory - I do not know why you are considering it?

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

It may be helpful if you provided a principle and law "of nature" that you believe to be different. It may be semantics but I think you may be confusing natural law of physics with social covenants that define a "kingdom".

Just like no social law of covenant of a dictatorship, kingdom or democracy is going to change the value of pi regardless of if one abides in heaven or outer darkness.

The Traveler

How about the idea that a spirit being never dies. I know of no such example in "nature", in this world. Show me an example of a spirit being living forever in this life, demonstrated only by laws of physics etc. Show me in nature, through scientific examples how Christ could bring Lazarus back from death, brain destroyed type death and rewire his brain to be who he was as before without going through birth and development or being kept alive on life support.

It is a bit hard to give you examples of things we cannot know. Have you been talking to any pharisees lately? Just Kidding!!

Alma 40:3 "Behold, he bringeth to pass the aresurrection of the dead. But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet. Now, I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know—that is concerning the resurrection."

...there are "many" not just a few minor details.

[Traveler]

How about the idea that a spirit being never dies. I know of no such example in "nature", in this world. Show me an example of a spirit being living forever in this life, demonstrated only by laws of physics etc. Show me in nature, through scientific examples how Christ could bring Lazarus back from death, brain destroyed type death and rewire his brain to be who he was as before without going through birth and development or being kept alive on life support.

It is a bit hard to give you examples of things we cannot know. Have you been talking to any pharisees lately? Just Kidding!!

Alma 40:3 "Behold, he bringeth to pass the aresurrection of the dead. But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet. Now, I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. But I show unto you one thing which I have inquired diligently of God that I might know—that is concerning the resurrection."

...there are "many" not just a few minor details.

As always I find your point of view interesting and worth investigating.

50 years ago the physics associated with dark energy and dark matter were mysteries and are somewhat mysterious still as to the physical science - but such things would seem much more so the those seeking spiritual understanding of such things. But my comments are more centered on the things that we do know and understand. Those "things" that we do not know - you are correct in asserting that it would be pointless to discuss what we do not know as truth that we ought to know.

For all things that we do know of the laws and principles of our universe that we do and can study that are and were utilized to create and maintain our universe - I can find none (any exceptions) that are inconsistent or that G-d would need to change in order for him to continue his creations and governing such things. I assumed that since you purport the likely hood that G-d does not rely consistently (or religiously) on those "universal" and "natural" laws and principles that we do know about - that you may have prepared an example of something you know rather than a speculation of sorts.

I had hoped that if you do not believe in the consistency of scientific study that you might be able to provide and demonstrate reason for your belief beyond pure speculation with a plausible example. I have attempted to speculate such matter but have found such speculation without sufficient merit to use in any discussions of what is known and not speculated.

For examples I have speculated relationships with higher orders of dimensions and how such orders could effect our physical laws and principles and how it may be possible that divine beings (such as G-d) can apply such principles of higher dimensions to cause miracles - including resurrection as you have questioned. Though I find such ides perhaps plausible but I have no way to demonstrate them from our current 3 dimensional space time state. So I see not point in discussing such things beyond speculation - certainly I cannot say with authority that I am right and you wrong about such thing - but I can say that I am able to speculate such things without violating the physical laws that currently govern us. But then that is what I intended to logically do - so I must concede that my logic is prejudiced with a predetermined conclusion - Which has a very high probability of being incorrect.

The Traveler

Edited May 14, 2013 by Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

As always I find your point of view interesting and worth investigating.

50 years ago the physics associated with dark energy and dark matter were mysteries and are somewhat mysterious still as to the physical science - but such things would seem much more so the those seeking spiritual understanding of such things. But my comments are more centered on the things that we do know and understand. Those "things" that we do not know - you are correct in asserting that it would be pointless to discuss what we do not know as truth that we ought to know.

For all things that we do know of the laws and principles of our universe that we do and can study that are and were utilized to create and maintain our universe - I can find none (any exceptions) that are inconsistent or that G-d would need to change in order for him to continue his creations and governing such things. I assumed that since you purport the likely hood that G-d does not rely consistently (or religiously) on those "universal" and "natural" laws and principles that we do know about - that you may have prepared an example of something you know rather than a speculation of sorts.

I had hoped that if you do not believe in the consistency of scientific study that you might be able to provide and demonstrate reason for your belief beyond pure speculation with a plausible example. I have attempted to speculate such matter but have found such speculation without sufficient merit to use in any discussions of what is known and not speculated.

For examples I have speculated relationships with higher orders of dimensions and how such orders could effect our physical laws and principles and how it may be possible that divine beings (such as G-d) can apply such principles of higher dimensions to cause miracles - including resurrection as you have questioned. Though I find such ides perhaps plausible but I have no way to demonstrate them from our current 3 dimensional space time state. So I see not point in discussing such things beyond speculation - certainly I cannot say with authority that I am right and you wrong about such thing - but I can say that I am able to speculate such things without violating the physical laws that currently govern us. But then that is what I intended to logically do - so I must concede that my logic is prejudiced with a predetermined conclusion - Which has a very high probability of being incorrect.

The Traveler

Great answer! Thanks.

When the world changed at the time Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, did the world just change in status or were there physical changes that took place and to what degree? Is there anything physical that remained in a paradisical state?

If everything changed or even if most things changed, why? Why did the world (all things created, which probably includes the universe) have to change?

2 Nephi " 22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end."

Moses 4 "23 And unto Adam, I, the Lord God, said: Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the fruit of the tree of which I commanded thee, saying—Thou shalt not eat of it, cursed shall be the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life."

1 Corinthians " 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.

49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all asleep, but we shall all be changed,"

The characteristics of first being of the earth then taking on the heavenly require a change, and the change is called a mystery, because we do not have those laws and characteristics now. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" but a change could allow it, to me, speaks of the physical differences that exist, not just the state of mind or state of righteousness.

Also, keep in mind that upon resurrection there is a difference in the body of those that receive a Celestial body versus those that receive a Terrestrial body and those of the Telestial. Why would there have to be different bodies for each group if it were only based on spiritual characteristics? Possibly because the physical characteristics of those places differ.

Why does one have to be transfigured physically to see God?

Revelation 21 " 1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea." Heaven, of course, in this case refers to the heavens or the universe around us. Why would all that have to change if it is just the same ol' nature, the same laws?

1 Corinthians 15 "40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another."

It is not one glory with different levels - that is what we talk about different levels within a Kingdom but the Celestial glory is one type and the terrestrial is another type. Why does the terrestrial have to be of another type and not just another level within the same type? Of course, in reference to the physical location and characteristics.

[mordorbund]

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)

I haven't seen this addressed, and you keep referencing it, so I thought I'd point out a premise I disagree with and a premise that doesn't necessarily hold true.

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)

I don't disagree with this, but I don't necessarily agree with it either. I don't know that everything that is self-existing must have some utility to it (which is how I'm reading this). Be that as it may, it's not the one I take issue with.

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

I would think, building on premise 1, that if the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is either an external cause or the necessity of its own nature. Why can't the universe be eternal? Hawking kicked around the idea that it was in a cycle of expanding and collapsing. Further, if the explanation is an external cause, that cause may be an unembodied mind, or perhaps an unobservable mind, or perhaps a mindless ecology, or perhaps a donkey composed of elements from another universe. You've taken quite a leap here and I'm not ready to hop aboard.

Additionally, you're hooked up on if spirit is matter, then it must hold all the same properties of matter of which we're already aware. I don't think this necessarily holds true either. The Prophet both described is as "finer", which lends credence to your idea of having a microscope that has a resolution for finer things, but he also described it as "purer", and I don't know many scientists ready to build a machine to view purer things. What does that mean? how do you do that? are the properties of purer matter the same as observable matter?

One other verse for your consideration, the same Prophet seemingly drew a distinction between the matter of spirit bodies and the matter of physical bodies here: Doctrine and Covenants 93:33 

For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

and in passing, regarding your philosophical musings of the chair and the body - your analogy fails if the physical body is not also replacing the purer matter of your spirit every 7 years.