The Church is true

[andypg]

As a scientist - I believe that truth of G-d and religion are just as much a fact as truth of gravity or electrons.   That there are discrepancies in what we think gravity is (or electrons) and what we observe in all cases to be the isotropic reality.  That inconsistencies that we may think we discover is not inconsistencies in reality but rather our perception of reality.

 

I submit that the reality of G-d is necessary for justice.  If someone believes in justice then there must be a just G-d.  If someone does not believe in justice - the consequence of such a belief is quite scary (including the possibility of a unjust G-d) - especially if you are on one insisting such is your intended or desired understanding.  The idea that someone intends to create their entire structure of all things and their understanding of all things based in injustice leaves me wondering that benefit they think there is to considering such an intellectual construct?

Just thought I'd chime in. I took a metaphysics class last semester and one of the things my professor made sure to hammer into us was that a metaphysical fact (like God) is just as true as a scientific fact, even if it is metaphysical and not part of the sciences.

And not to go too off topic, but it totally agree with your view on justice requiring God. C.S. Lewis makes that point in Mere Christianity. If there is a natural law or objective truth (which I'd argue there are), someone needed to create it.

[Lakumi]

Really???? do you think there is a simple proof of electrons, or photons?  Simpler than a proof that there is a G-d.  I submit that it is easier to believe in G-d than the current theory of electrons or photons.

 

Before I begin such a proof - do you believe in evolution?  Do you also believe that anything that can happen can be engineered or made to happen?

 

Yes of course I believe in evolution, and made to happen how?

And engineered by what exactly/

And yes I see a far simpler proof of electrons and protons then what people tell me about God.

[Quin]

Am I understanding you correctly that you believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not claim to be the ONE true church? Am I misunderstanding you?

Annatess had it right the first go-round.

Not a month goes by where there's not some sort of reference (from Conference to every Teachings of the Presidents I'e read to date, to RS meetings) about the truths found in other religions and other places. And it's more often not a week goes by. Whether we're borrowing a Catholic practice at the sacrament meeting, or meeting up with the good people at Beth Am for some service work, or reading passages from the Qur'an, or singing a Quaker song, or going as a ward to hear the Dali Llama speak, or, or, or, or. Our church is an INclusive, evolving (hello revelation!), loving church. All about seeking after the good. Wherever it may be found. And bringing it back with us. And sharing it! Revelling in this creation, and how much we have to learn! It's exciting, and amazing, and awe inspiring.

"The ONE true church", however, is a catch-all used by many different churches.

It denies that there is truth to be found in ANY other form of worship (including other christian sects, as well as non-Abrahamic religions).

It condemns all other faiths. And all the people in them.

Quite literally, to hell.

It's a nasty vile little piece of lingo that makes my skin crawl.

It's like the difference between confidence & insecurity.

One is confident in their own right. This church is true.

The other has to put others down. My church is the only church with truth, All y'all are going to hell.

Q

[Guest]

no gravity is a fact, not a belief, I have blood-that's a fact. I fall out of a tree, I'll hit the ground-that's a fact.

it's not there to prove itself to you-its there if you want it or not.

like wind or lightning.

the church and religion is ultimately built on faith because the methods we use to find fact cannot be used on it.

To say something isn't a fact means you can prove it wrong, there's no proving gravity wrong.

There is no ultimate proof everyone can see or feel, or whatever, with religion, there is with things like gravity and cold and etc

 

Lakumi.  You need to go back to Science Class.  Gravity is not a fact.  It is a Theory.  Gravity is just an explanation that Newton came up with to explain why the apple fell from the tree.  He could have said it's these green leprechauns dancing in the core of the earth and it would be the same - you can't prove that there are green leprechauns just like you can't prove that there is gravity - but you can prove that the apple will always fall down from the tree.  That is EXACTLY like Church.  I can't prove to you that there is a God, but I can always prove that People are Born on Earth and then Die.  I can't prove to you that there is Jesus, but I can always prove to you that if you Love Others as You Love Yourself, you will feel peace.  I can't prove to you that there is Gravity, but I can always prove to you that the apple will fall.

 

So, where we are different is - I trust Newton's explanation as much as I trust Joseph Smiths' explanation of WHY things happen the way they do.  Whereas you trust Newton and take what he says for fact (even if Newton himself doesnt - he had to change his understanding of gravity when he figured out the theory of relativity - yes, that's just a theory too) but you don't trust Joseph Smith.

 

And another difference is - I approach Newton's Theories in the same way that I approach Joseph Smith's.  I experiment on it before I formulate my conclusions on it.  My testimonies of religion are things I have already proven consistently whereas you haven't gotten a consistent proof yet.  And because these things are so vast that it takes time to experiment on everything (I will bet my bottom dollar that you haven't run all the experiments necessary to prove gravity) I take the experiments done by others as true if they align with the experiments I have already done myself.  But - you will take results of experiments by other people you don't know - most of whom are long dead and gone - when it comes to gravity but you will not take results of experiments by other people you don't know - most of whom are long dead and gone - when it comes to spiritual things.

[The Folk Prophet]

Annatess had it right the first go-round.

Not a month goes by where there's not some sort of reference (from Conference to every Teachings of the Presidents I'e read to date, to RS meetings) about the truths found in other religions and other places. And it's more often not a week goes by. Whether we're borrowing a Catholic practice at the sacrament meeting, or meeting up with the good people at Beth Am for some service work, or reading passages from the Qur'an, or singing a Quaker song, or going as a ward to hear the Dali Llama speak, or, or, or, or. Our church is an INclusive, evolving (hello revelation!), loving church. All about seeking after the good. Wherever it may be found. And bringing it back with us. And sharing it! Revelling in this creation, and how much we have to learn! It's exciting, and amazing, and awe inspiring.

"The ONE true church", however, is a catch-all used by many different churches.

It denies that there is truth to be found in ANY other form of worship (including other christian sects, as well as non-Abrahamic religions).

It condemns all other faiths. And all the people in them.

Quite literally, to hell.

It's a nasty vile little piece of lingo that makes my skin crawl.

It's like the difference between confidence & insecurity.

One is confident in their own right. This church is true.

The other has to put others down. My church is the only church with truth, All y'all are going to hell.

Q

 

Stating that you are in the one (To be clear, the common expression is the "only" true church" in Mormondom) has nothing to do with insecurity.  It does not deny good and truth in other churches and cultures. That is paranoia and over-sensitive. As you well pointed out, the LDS church at all levels constantly point out good and truth in other groups. And yet we maintain that we are the only true church. There is no conflict therein. It is easily explainable, and only offensive if one it looking to take offense. Leaving preaching at "the church is true" allows for the potential that there are multiple paths (churches) that might lead back to God.

 

Teaching that one belongs to the only true church is not a sign of insecurity. It is imperative to leading others to the truth. A belief that all religions are fine and everything in them is good is false. Some things good does not mean all things good. Perpetuating belief in something false is not helpful to anyone. Yes, we should be sensitive. Yes, we should qualify our meanings. But we should not avoid a truth because some take it hard. We should stand firm that there is a better way, and preach against falsehoods. And we can do this easily in a kind and sensitive way without denying truths. But if someone feels that their church is just as true, just as good, and just as valid as The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, why would they ever leave their church for ours? An understanding that the LDS church is better, in some way, is necessary.

 

Your implication that saying something along those lines is "vile" is pretty condemning to prophets and apostles throughout the ages, not to mention condemning to the scriptures. Just because a culture of over-sensitivity has grown up in the world and sentiments like what you are expressing here have become trendy does not change reality. The "lingo" is scriptural. I'm going to have a hard time accepting it as vile when it's straight from the scriptures.

[Lakumi]

Lakumi.  You need to go back to Science Class.  Gravity is not a fact.  It is a Theory.  Gravity is just an explanation that Newton came up with to explain why the apple fell from the tree.  He could have said it's these green leprechauns dancing in the core of the earth and it would be the same - you can't prove that there are green leprechauns just like you can't prove that there is gravity - but you can prove that the apple will always fall down from the tree.  That is EXACTLY like Church.  I can't prove to you that there is a God, but I can always prove that People are Born on Earth and then Die.  I can't prove to you that there is Jesus, but I can always prove to you that if you Love Others as You Love Yourself, you will feel peace.  I can't prove to you that there is Gravity, but I can always prove to you that the apple will fall.

 

So, where we are different is - I trust Newton's explanation as much as I trust Joseph Smiths' explanation of WHY things happen the way they do.  Whereas you trust Newton and take what he says for fact (even if Newton himself doesnt - he had to change his understanding of gravity when he figured out the theory of relativity - yes, that's just a theory too) but you don't trust Joseph Smith.

 

And another difference is - I approach Newton's Theories in the same way that I approach Joseph Smith's.  I experiment on it before I formulate my conclusions on it.  My testimonies of religion are things I have already proven consistently whereas you haven't gotten a consistent proof yet.  And because these things are so vast that it takes time to experiment on everything (I will bet my bottom dollar that you haven't run all the experiments necessary to prove gravity) I take the experiments done by others as true if they align with the experiments I have already done myself.  But - you will take results of experiments by other people you don't know - most of whom are long dead and gone - when it comes to gravity but you will not take results of experiments by other people you don't know - most of whom are long dead and gone - when it comes to spiritual things.

 

When it comes to spiritual matters, there is far less to go on, for me anyways. It is just a belief in the things I am told are true-I am supposed to trust that person saying these things is being truthful and that say God really spoke to them, etc, where as with things like gravity or evolution I don't have to trust anyone, their work speaks for itself.

If someone doesn't accept that Joseph Smith is a Prophet, they can't really be LDS can they?

But if someone hated Charles Darwin, well that doesn't make evolution any less real, nor would it shape your idea of it, if you were a rational person.

[The Folk Prophet]

But if someone hated Charles Darwin, well that doesn't make evolution any less real, nor would it shape your idea of it, if you were a rational person.

 

I'm skipping the first part of your comment because we've gone the rounds many times on that. But as to the Charles Darwin thing...baloney. You do not have to be irrational to question the veracity of Charles Darwin's ideas.

[Lakumi]

I'm skipping the first part of your comment because we've gone the rounds many times on that. But as to the Charles Darwin thing...baloney. You do not have to be irrational to question the veracity of Charles Darwin's ideas.

that was probably a poor word but I couldn't think of any others... text has that disadvantage sometimes.

[Dravin]

I'm skipping the first part of your comment because we've gone the rounds many times on that. But as to the Charles Darwin thing...baloney. You do not have to be irrational to question the veracity of Charles Darwin's ideas.

 

I could be wrong Folk, but I think he was trying to say that if one was rational one could hate Charles Darwin personally but still take his ideas on their own merits. Not that one has to be irrational to question his ideas.

[Lakumi]

I could be wrong Folk, but I think he was trying to say that if one was rational one could hate Charles Darwin personally but still take his ideas on their own merits. Not that one has to be irrational to question his ideas.

Yes thank you, I am not on the ball today it would seem.

[The Folk Prophet]

I could be wrong Folk, but I think he was trying to say that if one was rational one could hate Charles Darwin personally but still take his ideas on their own merits. Not that one has to be irrational to question his ideas.

 

Sure, but one could rationally hate Joseph Smith personally and still accept him as a Prophet. So there's a logical break in the analogy.

[Guest]

When it comes to spiritual matters, there is far less to go on, for me anyways. It is just a belief in the things I am told are true-I am supposed to trust that person saying these things is being truthful and that say God really spoke to them, etc, where as with things like gravity or evolution I don't have to trust anyone, their work speaks for itself.

If someone doesn't accept that Joseph Smith is a Prophet, they can't really be LDS can they?

But if someone hated Charles Darwin, well that doesn't make evolution any less real, nor would it shape your idea of it, if you were a rational person.

 

There is far less to go on for you because you went to school from Kindergarten through College learning Science whereas you spent zero time in school learning spiritual things.  I, on the other hand, went to school from Kindergarten through college learning both Science and Religion (went to Catholic Schools).  And I guarantee you - there are a lot to go on if you study Religion in the same manner you study Science.

 

If someone doesn't accept that Joseph Smith is a Prophet they can't be LDS... but that doesn't mean that they are sinners or not doing the right spiritual things, or that they can't be with God in the eternities.

 

Love our Neighbors as Ourselves, says Jesus Christ - it doesn't matter if Joseph Smith said it, or Pope Francis said it, or Billy Graham said it.  It is still true.  So, you don't have to believe Joseph Smith, or Pope Francis, or Billy Graham - to believe that Loving our Neighbors as Ourselves is the way to peace.  They might argue on WHY we have to love our neighbors as ourselves, but it is still true that if you Love your Neighbors as Yourself, you will be at peace.

 

Now, there are a gazillion researches on Climate Change - one scientist says this, another scientist says different... they argue to their hearts content.  It doesn't change the fact that Climate changes.  So one can argue WHY it changes... but, the fact still remains... Climate Changes.

 

Same exact thing.  Really.

[Dravin]

Sure, but one could rationally hate Joseph Smith personally and still accept him as a Prophet. So there's a logical break in the analogy.

 

Logical break there may be, but if he wasn't saying one has to be irrational to disagree with Darwin's ideas then he wasn't saying one has to be irrational to disagree with Darwin's ideas. *shrug*

[Traveler]

Yes of course I believe in evolution, and made to happen how?

And engineered by what exactly/

And yes I see a far simpler proof of electrons and protons then what people tell me about God.

Good - we both believe in evolution.  Do you believe that evolution is open ended - or is evolution closed meaning that there is some point at which evolution stops and no longer can happen?

 

As to the second question.  It is quite simple.  If something has happened - can it be made to happen by duplicating the parameters that cause the event.  For example if a diamond is created from carbon under great pressure - will a diamond always result when carbon of the same purity  and amount is submitted to the same pressure - will a diamond always result - it is it possible that if repeated enough - one would end up with something else that is quite different, like perhaps gold?

 

In science we call this principle of repeated parameters giving the same result - isotropic.   One assumption of scientific thinking is that the universe is isotropic - that laws of physics (nature) that are true here; are true everywhere throughout the universe - do you believe such principle?

[The Folk Prophet]

Logical break there may be, but if he wasn't saying one has to be irrational to disagree with Darwin's ideas then he wasn't saying one has to be irrational to disagree with Darwin's ideas. *shrug*

 

The implication was clearly there, imo. My read was simple:

 

Disagree with Joseph Smith = rational

Disagree with Charles Darwin = irrational

 

He may not have meant that. But it certainly read that way. So I said baloney.

 

Or, per the follow up, he may have meant:

 

Hate Joseph Smith = can't be a Mormon

Hate Charles Darwin = can still be an evolutionist

 

I still say baloney, but on the first clause this time.

 

Or, finally, maybe he meant what he literally said:

 

Disagree with Joseph = can't be a Mormon

Hate Charles Darwin = can still be an evolutionist

 

This creates a logical fallacy in the argument and isn't comparing apples to apples. So...I turn to Lakumi. Would you like to clarify?

 

Here's my best effort to try and understand what he meant. I believe the point he is trying to make is that one can rationally disbelieve in God, but one cannot rationally disbelieve in, say, gravity.

[Dravin]

Or, finally, maybe he meant what he literally said:

 

Disagree with Joseph = can't be a Mormon

Hate Charles Darwin = can still be an evolutionist

 

This creates a logical fallacy in the argument and isn't comparing apples to apples. So...I turn to Lakumi. Would you like to clarify?

 

I'd say that they aren't identical was his point, at least as I read it, that Joseph Smith relates to Mormonism in ways in which Charles Darwin doesn't relate to evolution. He was responding to Anatess who was trying to draw an equation between Newton and Joseph Smith and he was disagreeing that the equation was valid (though instead of using Newton he switch to Darwin, probably because he doesn't feel the scientist in question is particularly pertinent to his point). Ultimately it's up to Lakumi to clarify.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'd say that they aren't identical was his point, at least as I read it, that Joseph Smith relates to Mormonism in ways in which Charles Darwin doesn't relate to evolution. He was responding to Anatess who was trying to draw an equation between Newton and Joseph Smith and he was disagreeing that the equation was valid (though instead of using Newton he switch to Darwin, probably because he doesn't feel the scientist in question is particularly pertinent to his point). Ultimately it's up to Lakumi to clarify.

 

He was trying to point out that the comparison was invalid. I am arguing that he failed due to logical fallacy.

[Guest]

Regardless of what Lakumi meant, it all stems from him thinking Gravity is Fact, God is Not.  An interesting position...

[Quin]

Stating that you are in the one (To be clear, the common expression is the "only" true church" in Mormondom) has nothing to do with insecurity. It does not deny good and truth in other churches and cultures. That is paranoia and over-sensitive. As you well pointed out, the LDS church at all levels constantly point out good and truth in other groups. And yet we maintain that we are the only true church. There is no conflict therein. It is easily explainable, and only offensive if one it looking to take offense. Leaving preaching at "the church is true" allows for the potential that there are multiple paths (churches) that might lead back to God.

Teaching that one belongs to the only true church is not a sign of insecurity. It is imperative to leading others to the truth. A belief that all religions are fine and everything in them is good is false. Some things good does not mean all things good. Perpetuating belief in something false is not helpful to anyone. Yes, we should be sensitive. Yes, we should qualify our meanings. But we should not avoid a truth because some take it hard. We should stand firm that there is a better way, and preach against falsehoods. And we can do this easily in a kind and sensitive way without denying truths. But if someone feels that their church is just as true, just as good, and just as valid as The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, why would they ever leave their church for ours? An understanding that the LDS church is better, in some way, is necessary.

Your implication that saying something along those lines is "vile" is pretty condemning to prophets and apostles throughout the ages, not to mention condemning to the scriptures. Just because a culture of over-sensitivity has grown up in the world and sentiments like what you are expressing here have become trendy does not change reality. The "lingo" is scriptural. I'm going to have a hard time accepting it as vile when it's straight from the scriptures.

1) Language and colloquial use of it (which IS why I said "lingo"), both evolve.

Using your logic (disallowing the evolution on language.... Then:

- Jack Mormons are non-members who are friendly to the Church.

- Negro is how we should describe people of color

- Gay people are just very happy

2) just because it's in the scriptures doesn't mean that a thing isn't vile,

nor does it mean I'm spitting on the prophets & apostles to disagree with either practices or people contained therein.

- Slavery

- Rape

- & a whole host of other practices I find vile are in the Scriptures.

3) While, yes, there is quite a lot of devaluing of human life in the scriptures.

And, yes, the scriptures HAVE been used to justify genocides, wars, executions, inquisitions, etc.

I choose both to reject those justifications and the premise they stand upon: that truth is finite, we have it, and you don't. At all. Period.

I can, instead, choose to interpret truth as inclusive rather than exclusive.

PART of that is refusing to hop on board with any colloquialism that dehumanizes & demonizes everyone else in the world except "us".

Regardless of its source.

If in 10 years "Jesus is Love" becomes the tag line of a terrorist group, and what is commonly used by people before beating the snot out of someone they don't like... I'll find THAT statement and it's usage vile, too.

Doesn't mean I find Jesus vile. It means I find the lingo, the colloquialism, abhorrent.

Q

[The Folk Prophet]

1) Language and colloquial use of it (which IS why I said "lingo"), both evolve.

Using your logic (disallowing the evolution on language.... Then:

- Jack Mormons are non-members who are friendly to the Church.

- Negro is how we should describe people of color

- Gay people are just very happy

2) just because it's in the scriptures doesn't mean that a thing isn't vile,

nor does it mean I'm spitting on the prophets & apostles to disagree with either practices or people contained therein.

- Slavery

- Rape

- & a whole host of other practices I find vile are in the Scriptures.

3) While, yes, there is quite a lot of devaluing of human life in the scriptures.

And, yes, the scriptures HAVE been used to justify genocides, wars, executions, inquisitions, etc.

I choose both to reject those justifications and the premise they stand upon: that truth is finite, we have it, and you don't. At all. Period.

I can, instead, choose to interpret truth as inclusive rather than exclusive.

PART of that is refusing to hop on board with any colloquialism that dehumanizes & demonizes everyone else in the world except "us".

Regardless of its source.

If in 10 years "Jesus is Love" becomes the tag line of a terrorist group, and what is commonly used by people before beating the snot out of someone they don't like... I'll find THAT statement and it's usage vile, too.

Doesn't mean I find Jesus vile. It means I find the lingo, the colloquialism, abhorrent.

Q

 

Right. Because claiming the LDS church is the only true church is usually a prelude to beating the snot out of someone.

 

Your point of view loses credibility when you make it so ridiculously extreme. Slavery, rape, genocide, dehumanization, demonizing, terrorism?

 

Yeah. That's the same thing as believing you belong to the only true church.

 

It's pretty hard to take this sort of point of view very seriously.

 

And there is nothing colloquial about the word "only" and it's meaning in the early days of the church as compared to now. It means the exact same thing, and holds absolutely no more or less offense than it ever did. There is no evolution to the meaning and usage of the fact that we believe that we belong to the only true church. None whatsoever. Your analogous examples have no relationship to the phrase "only true church".

[Seminarysnoozer]

Good - we both believe in evolution.  Do you believe that evolution is open ended - or is evolution closed meaning that there is some point at which evolution stops and no longer can happen?

 

As to the second question.  It is quite simple.  If something has happened - can it be made to happen by duplicating the parameters that cause the event.  For example if a diamond is created from carbon under great pressure - will a diamond always result when carbon of the same purity  and amount is submitted to the same pressure - will a diamond always result - it is it possible that if repeated enough - one would end up with something else that is quite different, like perhaps gold?

 

In science we call this principle of repeated parameters giving the same result - isotropic.   One assumption of scientific thinking is that the universe is isotropic - that laws of physics (nature) that are true here; are true everywhere throughout the universe - do you believe such principle?

But could you apply something that is true for this universe with this type of matter, course matter to a universe of a different type of matter, fine matter?  We are told that spirit matter is different from our current state.

[onethatislazy]

You are asking how I view this phrase.

 

The Church of the Firstborn is the only true church. Neither do I believe an organization or or an insitution is the kingdom of God. 

 

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

 

In context.

 

 

20Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst." 22And He said to the disciples, "The days will come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it.… (Luke 17)

 

You cannot see the kingdom of God and why is that? Because its within each person that receives it. The lord warns us to not look anywhere that makes this claim below.

 

nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or, 'There it is!' 

 

You cannot see it because "the church" is each person that communes with the general assembly of God or the pure in heart. 

 

 

 

 1 Nephi 14:10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

[Traveler]

But could you apply something that is true for this universe with this type of matter, course matter to a universe of a different type of matter, fine matter?  We are told that spirit matter is different from our current state.

Not sure of your question.  If there is a significant difference in two "kinds" of matter then why call both matter?   We can also understand in the revelation given by Joseph to have pointed out that there is greater similarity than there is difference between what we call matter and spirit matter because they are both matter.  So my question is - why do you look for differences if the similarities are of any importance?

 

I have speculated that the difference is that spirit matter has an additional dimension.  Thus where that which is spiritual intersects with our 3 dimensional space time there is commonality but there is more to that which is spirit than we can access in our 3 dimensional space time. 

[Traveler]

You are asking how I view this phrase.

 

The Church of the Firstborn is the only true church. Neither do I believe an organization or or an insitution is the kingdom of God. 

 

In context.

 

You cannot see the kingdom of God and why is that? Because its within each person that receives it. The lord warns us to not look anywhere that makes this claim below.

 

You cannot see it because "the church" is each person that communes with the general assembly of God or the pure in heart. 

I wonder if you have missed the forest because of all the trees.  Jesus may have been using himself and his work as a symbolic metaphor of the kingdom of G-d.  Thus it is not what is uniquely us and what we bring to the table but what Jesus brings to the table that constitutes the kingdom of G-d.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Not sure of your question.  If there is a significant difference in two "kinds" of matter then why call both matter?   We can also understand in the revelation given by Joseph to have pointed out that there is greater similarity than there is difference between what we call matter and spirit matter because they are both matter.  So my question is - why do you look for differences if the similarities are of any importance?

 

I have speculated that the difference is that spirit matter has an additional dimension.  Thus where that which is spiritual intersects with our 3 dimensional space time there is commonality but there is more to that which is spirit than we can access in our 3 dimensional space time. 

I agree that there is an overlap but I do not agree that they are more similar than different, we honestly do not know.  The differences or similarities between the two might be represented by how important it is to have a body over a spirit that is just spirit matter alone.  You may say, there is hardly any difference between the two.  I would say, it was a pretty big deal for us to get this body, something our spirit body couldn't get on its own. The differences might also be represented by how far you think we have fallen from our previous status, not very far or somewhat or very far? 

 

If spirit matter was the encompasing matter over both the fine and the course as you are suggesting, then why is it so important to have a body.  If the spirit body and its matter can do everything course matter can do and more then there is no need for a body and spirits who don't get a body are not made any lesser for it.  Obviously, the body adds to the spirit with something the spirit does not have intrinsically by itself.  I think the body and the spirit have some cross over but just like a Venn diagram there is a part that is just course matter alone and not part of the overlapp.  While one is viewing the Venn diagram while standing in the circle that is just course matter, one cannot see the parts that are spirit matter.  There has to be some interaction between the matter as one can influence the other but spirits are placed within certain spheres, there is a limitation and purpose to its interaction.  There is no spirit "matter" floating around that is not placed within a sphere or purpose of some kind around us. 

To try to explain the differences based in course matter terms, I think, is not going to get you anywhere.

 

Why does a body have to translated or transformed to see God if they are more similar than different?