Life and death

[Traveler]

It is often interesting to me how individuals draw specific conclusions to vague doctrine and principles.  Life and death is an example.  We understand in doctrine that life is the addition of a spirit to a physical body and that likewise death is the separation of a spirit from its assigned body.  That is the vague doctrine and principles of life and death.  But we also learn that inanimate “things” also have spirits.  That in the creation that all “things” were created spiritually before they were created physically – but to be honest I am not sure I understand what this actually means.

 

Part of the problem is that we do not really understand what spirits are.  We have no empirical way of determining spirit stuff.  Doctors declare someone has died but not in accordance with the principles and doctrine of life and death.  EMT when responding to emergencies will check for a pulse – if they cannot determine a pulse – the person is assumed dead and there are legally obligated to do anything to preserve at that point.

 

At the cellular level – what happens when a cell divides?  The parent cell no longer exists and the two offspring cells are as varied and distinguishable from the initial parent as they are from each other – so can we say the parent “died” or that the two children were borne?  Did new life occur? Did old life die?  I am not sure individual cells have spirits?

 

We can keep a person’s body on life support indefinitely.  But are they already dead?  Has their spirit vacated that body?  If so what is keeping their body medically alive?   

 

How do we determine what a living “thing” is or when we say, something is alive or living – what exactly are we saying?  When we say G-d is a living G-d and is not dead – what are we really saying?  Is a spirit alive?  Is a spirit a living thing?

 

The Traveler

Edited April 28, 2016 by Traveler

[tesuji]

I want to know the answers to all your questions.

Plus:

I also want to know what the deal with animals is. The have spirits, I assume. Are the resurrected? I assume so. Do they progress in the next life into something greater, maybe sentience? If the church wasn't completely against reincarnation, it would make sense that lower orders of live progress and are reborn into a higher order. But not doctrine at all, this idea.

Same question, for plants.

Also, when does the spirit enter into the embryo or fetus?

 

I do love the Mormon doctrine about spirits also being matter, just a more refined form that we (usually) can't see with our mortal eyes. If you accept that premise, so many other things make sense.

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by tesuji

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

How do we determine what a living “thing” is or when we say, something is alive or living – what exactly are we saying?  When we say G-d is a living G-d and is not dead – what are we really saying?  Is a spirit alive?  Is a spirit a living thing?

I think two principles inform this conversation: 1) Things that act (alive) and things that are acted upon (dead); 2) Things that are quickened by the light of Christ (alive) and things that are governed by the light of Christ (dead). Because of the interplay between these two principles and agency, something can be alive in once sense and dead in another.

So far, I’m speaking in spiritual terms which have physical application in mortality, but I also think that whether we are using scientific terms, or trying to reconcile the scientific and the spiritual, makes a difference on how we discuss these things.

[LeSellers]

35 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think two principles inform this conversation: 1) Things that act (alive) and things that are acted upon (dead);

There is some confusion in the word "dead". It implies that the thing was, or could be, alive at one point. A rock, for instance, is not "dead" even though it's not alive.

The construction "non-living" is clearer, but it's clumsy. And there is something wrong with it, too, because I'm not sure, exactly, what "alive" means. If it means that the object has a spirit, then everything in the universe is alive because the whole of creation was created spiritually first, then physically. I have no idea what that means: are there spirit earths and moons, stars and rocks, and water? 

The Temple presentation leads me to believe that a spiritual creation may not be an organization of spiritual matter, but the conceptualization of creation. But that is unsatisfactory because we, at least, were created spiritually, and the Lord doesn't make a distinction, in terms of this level of creation, between us and the rest of His work.

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I also think that whether we are using scientific terms, or trying to reconcile the scientific and the spiritual, makes a difference on how we discuss these things

Language is both communication and dissembling. We can't really understand that which we cannot describe. But description can't go beyond the words we have. I, at least, don't have the words.

Lehi

[zil]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

A rock, for instance, is not "dead" even though it's not alive.

Personally, I'm not convinced that rocks aren't alive.  Clearly they don't live the same sort of lives we live, but I'm not convinced they aren't alive.  I'm not even convinced they don't have agency.  But that's me, and I'm OK with whatever answer God one day gives me on this.

[tesuji]

27 minutes ago, zil said:

Personally, I'm not convinced that rocks aren't alive.  Clearly they don't live the same sort of lives we live, but I'm not convinced they aren't alive.  I'm not even convinced they don't have agency.  But that's me, and I'm OK with whatever answer God one day gives me on this.

Well, rocks at least contain intelligence, somewhere within the particles of matter of which they are made. All matter contains intelligence, as I understand it. That's how matter is able to obey God; for example, in Jesus's miracles.

This is my understanding. But I might be on shaky ground:
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Intelligences

Edited April 28, 2016 by tesuji

[CV75]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

There is some confusion in the word "dead". It implies that the thing was, or could be, alive at one point. A rock, for instance, is not "dead" even though it's not alive.

The construction "non-living" is clearer, but it's clumsy. And there is something wrong with it, too, because I'm not sure, exactly, what "alive" means. If it means that the object has a spirit, then everything in the universe is alive because the whole of creation was created spiritually first, then physically. I have no idea what that means: are there spirit earths and moons, stars and rocks, and water? 

The Temple presentation leads me to believe that a spiritual creation may not be an organization of spiritual matter, but the conceptualization of creation. But that is unsatisfactory because we, at least, were created spiritually, and the Lord doesn't make a distinction, in terms of this level of creation, between us and the rest of His work.

Language is both communication and dissembling. We can't really understand that which we cannot describe. But description can't go beyond the words we have. I, at least, don't have the words.

Lehi

Lots to think about! And it can be confusing, which is why I think it is good to set up some definitions (which may not work for all instances) for the sake of discussion. That is really the first poster’s job, but he is looking for some definition, so that gives us some permission to proceed, doesn’t it!

Picking up on what you’ve laid out, and conceptually speaking (2 Nephi 2:11), “compounds in one” (or things that have no opposition) are dead, which in this passage is defined as “having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.” I usually don’t think of death that way, but there it is! It can be other than the separation of a governing spirit from its gifted element.

Element without spirit, it seems to me, could fit this conceptualization as “a thing of naught,” (verse 12) and taken to the extreme, “must have vanished away” (verse 13). God’s eternal purpose seems to make the difference, and this purpose is carried out in many ways, the most fundamental of which seems to be the exercise of the light of Christ to quicken things that act and to govern things are acted upon (which is entailed in the “creation of [both types of] things”). For example, we exercised out intent in God’s creation process but the elements did not.

We are also a little of both; we are both quickened and governed by God according to whom we choose to follow, until we become like God (or heaven forbid, don’t!). The more like God we are, the more agency we have and the more alive we are; the more like the adversary, the less agency we retain and less alive we are 9as reflected in the resurrected by a lesser degree of glory).

In the example from the first post, a dismembered arm might be kept alive but have no spirit arm. Or the whole body, for that matter. Living cells and tissues in the laboratory, I would say, have no governing spirit in the same sense that we govern our bodies, but they are quickened only by the light of Christ. We are so quickened, but also otherwise enhanced by the Holy Ghost.

(I’m still using spiritual language for the most part).

[CV75]

49 minutes ago, zil said:

Personally, I'm not convinced that rocks aren't alive.  Clearly they don't live the same sort of lives we live, but I'm not convinced they aren't alive.  I'm not even convinced they don't have agency.  But that's me, and I'm OK with whatever answer God one day gives me on this.

i think they are alive in that they have not vanished away and have a purpose in God creating them. They are dead in that they are non-quickened element (as far as we can tell!).

I don't think living things necessarily require spirits; it all depends. There was another thread about Adam and Eve; perhaps the fruit that was eaten had no spirit, so death was not part of the environment as one person suggested. Yet it was alive both because it served God's purpose and because it presumably had some terrestrial-level physiology going on suitable for its part in the tree's physiological cycle. This physiology also may be why Adam and Eve could not have children; their and their offspring's physiology was unsuitable (or unauthorized) to bring God's spirit children  into element.

...apologies for the tangent...

Edited April 28, 2016 by CV75

[Guest]

Cogito cogito.

Ergo, cogito sum.

So, do rocks think?

[tesuji]

How about the earth - is it alive in some way? I've always wondered what the following scriptures were talking about.

Moses 7, where the earth is talking:

Quote

48 And it came to pass that Enoch looked upon the earth; and he heard a voice from the bowels thereof, saying: Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me? When will my Creator sanctify me, that I may rest, and righteousness for a season abide upon my face?
49 And when Enoch heard the earth mourn, he wept, and cried unto the Lord, saying: O Lord, wilt thou not have compassion upon the earth? Wilt thou not bless the children of Noah?

D&C 88:

Quote

25 And again, verily I say unto you, the earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law—
26 Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.

 

Edited April 28, 2016 by tesuji

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, tesuji said:

How about the earth - is it alive in some way? I've always wondered what the following scriptures were talking about.

Moses 7, where the earth is talking:

D&C 88:

I could go either way on that. In one sense, as Adam's (humanity's) stewardship, the earth may serve as a communal tool expressing or reflecting humanity's condition and voice, much like a musical instrument (or as the Lord "speaks" through the voice of earthquakes, weather, and various other natural events, D&C 43:25). The saints inherit the earth, so there may be some particulars about whose voice she reflects. It followed Adam's lead when he was in Eden, and then when he fell.

Because the earth fulfills the measure of its creation (God's purposes), it will live the assigned celestial law according to His will, just as Eden did by abiding a terrestrial law (until Adam and Eve changed or transgressed it and it became a telestial law). The people who dwell on it will be celestial people, so they seem to have a part in defining their stewardship as a celestial earth, following God's will.

The earth dies in that the light of Christ which governs it acts on it in such a way as to turn it into the most elemental dust (2 Peter 3:10) before the Lord celestializes it (D&C 77:1), and this may be a restoration of element rather than a resurrection of spirit and element.

But for all I know she has a spirit!

Edited April 28, 2016 by CV75

[bytebear]

The Earth was also baptized in the great flood.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, bytebear said:

The Earth was also baptized in the great flood.

Yes, but I think not for the remission of any sins it committed. It was certainly submerged in water and cleansed of the negative effects imposed upon it by the wicked who were destroyed in the flood (as much as a telestial sphere can be cleansed -- it retained the physical effects of the Fall). Its baptism was a fresh start, a re-dedication and a gift of sorts, for Noah and his family to do better than those who were destroyed.

Edited April 30, 2016 by CV75

[bytebear]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, but I think not for the remission of any sins it committed. It was certainly submerged in water and cleansed of the negative effects imposed upon it by the wicked who were destroyed in the flood (as much as a telestial sphere can be cleansed -- it retained the physical effects of the Fall). Its baptism was a fresh start, a re-dedication and a gift of sorts, for Noah and his family to do better than those who were destroyed.

Yes, just like our own baptism does not preclude us from sinful influence or remove us from our fallen state.  But it was a cleansing, and a purification, and to fulfill righteousness.

Edited April 30, 2016 by bytebear

[CV75]

On 4/28/2016 at 6:05 PM, tesuji said:

How about the earth - is it alive in some way? I've always wondered what the following scriptures were talking about.

 

On 4/30/2016 at 0:50 AM, bytebear said:

The Earth was also baptized in the great flood.

I noted in Genesis that the term "living" was applied only to the animals ("living creature," 2:19) and Adam ("living soul,: 2:7), and not to any of the other creations. Animals are also referred to as "living souls" that were "granted life" in Moses 3:19, 2:30. These terms are not used for the earth or plants.

But I guess too much can be read into these things, also! For example, to what does D&C 45:1 refer with respect to "things were made which live, and move, and have a being"

?

[Edspringer]

In my view, we can either take the philosophy and science paths or the Gospel one. 

 

Philosophy's greatest challenge seems to be defining what life is and death is. For most people, we're only creatures that are born, grow, procriate and die, with no other purpose. Science says that nothing in nature is created, they're only transformed, suggesting continuous existance. 

 

We learn, through the restored Gospel, that intelligences are co-eternal with God, meaning they have always existed and will always exist. Our Father organized intelligences into spirit bodies for His children and everything else. We lived with Him ages ago, as we are taught. We were granted the chance to come to Earth and experience mortal life. We learn that we would have our spirits and bodies separated for a season (physical death), but throught the Infinite Atonement of Jesus Christ we were promissed to be ressurecte and die physicaly no more. 

 

So, what is intelligence? We know very little, but the scripures say that it is light and truth. “Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence”. (D&C 93:29-30)  “The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words,light and truth” (D&C 93:36). What is light? What is truth? Let’s all ponder and meditate for a while.

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2016 by Edspringer
misspelled words

[james12]

Perhaps the scientific view of life is too narrow. If we take the scriptural view we would say the spirit is life and that all things were created spiritually before they were created physically. There are no objects that do not have some form of spirit and thus some form of life. But those objects which have only a small portion (or lesser part) of spirit are to us called "inanimate" or "dead". To gain more of the spirit is to gain more life, to be more connected, to be more in tune with spirit. So Christ, who descended below all things and ascended on high is connected to all spirit, or all life. 

Thus as Parley P. Pratt said, " Its [The Spirit's] inspiration constitutes instinct in animal life, reason in man, vision in the Prophets, and is continually flowing from the Godhead throughout all His creatures." (Key to the Science of Theology, Ch V).

[tesuji]

1 hour ago, james12 said:

Perhaps the scientific view of life is too narrow. If we take the scriptural view we would say the spirit is life and that all things were created spiritually before they were created physically. There are no objects that do not have some form of spirit and thus some form of life.

Human spirits are made of matter, but a more refined type of matter that our mortal eyes can see. The spiritual creation of the world and all things in it could refer to the organizing of this spiritual material, which could be essentially inanimate. So I wouldn't say that spirit matter is life; but that spirit life is made up of that spirit material.

Also, I myself kinda think that God creating things spiritually first means just that they were planned in God's mind first, before they came into being. If this is true, then it is more compatible with what science tells us about how things came to be. Not that science has it all correct, though....

[james12]

5 hours ago, tesuji said:

Human spirits are made of matter, but a more refined type of matter that our mortal eyes can see. The spiritual creation of the world and all things in it could refer to the organizing of this spiritual material, which could be essentially inanimate. So I wouldn't say that spirit matter is life; but that spirit life is made up of that spirit material.

Also, I myself kinda think that God creating things spiritually first means just that they were planned in God's mind first, before they came into being. If this is true, then it is more compatible with what science tells us about how things came to be. Not that science has it all correct, though....

True enough that in one narrow context the word "spirit" refers to refined matter. But  the Light of Christ, or sometimes Holy Spirit, Spirit, or Spirit of Truth does not simply refer to refined matter, it is the influence of the God, which permeates and penetrates the entire universe. It is light, intelligence, and ultimately life. It is this life and light of which we all partake. As our scriptures plainly testify: 

Quote

And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; which ilight proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space - the light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things (D&C 88:11-13)

In so much as we have the Spirit (the influence of God) we have life. As the Savior testified, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." (John 10:10). I have simply extended these statements beyond their usually context to inanimate objects on the one end and the beyond are current state at the other. 

[Traveler]

The main point I wanted to make is that doctrine is vague and not specific.  But that it is our nature to make the vague specific.  I had hoped that the discussion would have moved around the general vagueness but instead the discussion has centered on what is life and what is death.

As we try to make some sense of the religious doctrine of life and death and think to construct some conformal mapping to our empirical world I am a little surprised that other very connected doctrines have not even been mentioned.   I do not want in any way to put forward the idea that I am an expert – I am not.  I realize that when it comes to doctrine I have much more to learn before I would consider myself even a decent beginner.  But often I find myself light years beyond others that seem to have appointed themselves experts in whatever.  What I try to do is ask question that would indicate what they may not have considered in coming to their expert opinions.  But this seems to really tick off self-appointed experts.

 

Considering what I life and death – obviously there are empirical conditions that bring a lot of questions to the table.  But there are religious notions that have been completely left out of the discussion – and that surprises me.  As I have considered this issue from scriptural study – I came across the notion of “the breath of life”.  For those that have not done their homework on life – you may want to do a word search for “breath” and “life” to find the particular phrase.

 

This research has me very baffled – I have no idea what the “breath of life” is.  But I find it interesting that it is not associated with an individual (and we tend to think of life in terms of an individual) but the “breath of life” is associated with the male and female.  This gives me that idea that life is not existing just as an individual but may have something to do with things beyond just ourselves existing.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Traveler
duplicate

[tesuji]

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

But there are religious notions that have been completely left out of the discussion – and that surprises me.  

I'd like to learn more about what you mean here

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

This research has me very baffled – I have no idea what the “breath of life” is.   

If you are talking about God breathing the breath of life into Adam and Eve - I tend to take the beginning of Genesis with a big grain of salt. I believe it, but I suspect it is not the literal and/or full story of what happened at the creation.

"Breath" is the same word as "spirit" in Greek (Gr. pneuma) if you are looking at the New Testament. The Hebrew word (neshamah) in Genesis also means breath or spirit. So it could just be saying that Adam's body at some point received his spirit (in whatever way Adam actually was born and/or came into being).

 

Edited May 5, 2016 by tesuji

[Traveler]

37 minutes ago, tesuji said:

I'd like to learn more about what you mean here

If you are talking about God breathing the breath of life into Adam and Eve - I tend to take the beginning of Genesis with a big grain of salt. I believe it, but I suspect it is not the literal and/or full story of what happened at the creation.

"Breath" is the same word as "spirit" in Greek (Gr. pneuma) if you are looking at the New Testament. The Hebrew word (neshamah) in Genesis also means breath or spirit. So it could just be saying that Adam's body at some point received his spirit (in whatever way Adam actually was born and/or came into being).

 

 

If you do a word surch on the scriptures you will discover the term used to discribe why Noah gathered animals in two's.  Also the way the word is used in Hebrews it is plural not singular.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Traveler
duplicate

[LeSellers]

6 hours ago, tesuji said:

If you are talking about God breathing the breath of life into Adam and Eve - I tend to take the beginning of Genesis with a big grain of salt. I believe it, but I suspect it is not the literal and/or full story of what happened at the creation.

We have at least three accounts* of the Creation, and while they don't contradict each other, they are not identical.
* Genesis, Moses, And Abraham. We should also count the Temple presentation.

Except for  a few fanatical types, I can't imagine that people believe the Genesis Account® is a complete and literal version of God's creating.

So, based on the above, the statement that it is not the literal and/full story of what happened a the creation is undeniably accurate.

Lehi