Dead people

[Jamie123]

It's almost a year now since my mother died. Over the past few months my father has had a growing friendship with a really nice widow lady - a friend of my late mother. They have been away on holiday together several times, and when I spoke to him this evening I ventured to ask if there was any possibility of romance. He said no, absolutely not, and he would never ever be over my mother

 He got quite emotional about it, about how he still missed her every day. I miss her myself of course, she was the most loving mother I could ever have had, but its a well known fact that old people die. If they went on living forever, there would be no room for all the new babies. We know that we won't have our parents/ grandparents forever, and if we are wise we appreciate them while we still have them and let them know how much we love them.

But where do they go? As Christians we suppose that they live on in some form of afterlife, we hope some kind of paradise. Do we really believe this? It's easy to say we do, but it makes me think of T.S.Eliot's Four Quartets:

Quote

First, the cold fricton of expiring sense
Without enchantment, offering no promise
But bitter tastelessness of shadow fruit
As body and soul begin to fall asunder.

"Shadow fruit". Even as a child I knew the sentiment behind those words - long before I ever read the poem. Death is final, and compared to it what is the "shadow fruit" - the words of priests?

As for people who claim they can talk with the dead, I have no schmuck with them. For one thing the Bible tells us to stay away from that malarkey, and for another have you ever been to one of those meetings? I have - I once took my wife to the spiritualist church in Kingston (after she had been asking for some time to go) and you never saw or heard such garbage in all your life. This "medium" woman was quite clearly making it all up - giving out little bits of information (which could have applied to almost anyone) and letting members of the congregation fill in the details. My wife got so excited with it and so cross with me for my pooh-poohing of it all. Enough about that though. I'll talk about that some other time.

And yet, wherever dead people "go" (assuming they go anywhere at all) they are still with us in our memories. My mother still feels as real to me now. Its as though she still exists - just in the past, not the present. Does that make any sense?

So maybe our dead relatives still do exist - not in some parallel universe or "higher dimension" but in that portion of spacetime that we (quite arbitrarily) label "the past".

Edited July 6, 2024 by Jamie123
Spelling

[Carborendum]

13 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

So maybe our dead relatives still do exist - not in some parallel universe or "higher dimension" but in that portion of spacetime that we (quite arbitrarily) label "the past".

I know that they exist now in the most clear and literal sense.  The "here" may be transitory.  But they exist today.

The existence of "spirits" cannot be clearer.  While poets and philosophers may talk of some figurative existence, they know not because they have no faith.  Spirits are real.  We don't have the scientific knowledge to be able to describe them or weigh/measure them as we would normally do for mortal understanding.  But that doesn't mean they don't exist in a very real and literal sense.

They exist.

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I know that they exist now in the most clear and literal sense.  The "here" may be transitory.  But they exist today.

The existence of "spirits" cannot be clearer.  While poets and philosophers may talk of some figurative existence, they know not because they have no faith.  Spirits are real.  We don't have the scientific knowledge to be able to describe them or weigh/measure them as we would normally do for mortal understanding.  But that doesn't mean they don't exist in a very real and literal sense.

They exist.

Well actually they could be clearer if they were visible to us. You're right we cannot prove they don't exist, but that takes us straight to Russell's flying teapot argument.

But as well as a persistence of doubt, there's also a persistence of belief - or perhaps "make- belief" - though often in a rather negative kind of way. I've always had a nagging suspicion that my dead relatives are floating around me all the time, watching what I'm doing. I remember once as a teenager thinking "I'd better be careful when I think I'm alone, Aunt Phillis could be watching!"

Do you not think that for most of us there is a "believing self" and a "doubting self" that stand in opposition to each other? For example, the believing self can look at the beauty of creation and think "there must be a God". But the doubting self will point to the Mandelbrot set and say "Look at the beauty here, and that is just numbers! No God needed!"

You might pray to God and think you get an answer, but the doubter within you might say "that was just coincidence" or "it was your imagination" or "you think God gave you strength, but you really found that strength within yourself". It's not enough to say "doubt is bad". It is the age-old argument of "pooh-pooh". There needs to be a reason for it that you can trust.

Edited July 6, 2024 by Jamie123
Some additional thoughts

[Carborendum]

6 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Do you not think that for most of us there is a "believing self" and a "doubting self" that stand in opposition to each other?

I don't subscribe to this philosophy.

I would point out that you have not lived my life.  There is no way you can know what I believe and what I doubt.  You didn't do any investigative work to see why I believe what I believe.  You automatically jumped to the conclusion that I only "imagined" my knowledge just as so many others have.  You assumed that whatever "evidence" I have must merely be a "vague feeling."  

While it appears that this would perfectly describe how you've concluded this on your own, you'd be in error to automatically believe that of all people.  But since you've shown that you are closed to anything more, there's not much point in talking more about it.

Edited July 6, 2024 by Carborendum

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

While it appears that this would perfectly describe how you've concluded this on your own, you'd be in error to automatically believe that of all people.  But since you've shown that you are closed to anything more, there's not much point in talking more about it.

I have not concluded anything and I am certainly not closed to anything else. Perhaps I should not have said "most of us" - in the final analysis I can only speak for myself. But I dare to suggest that I am a fairly representative example of humanity, and I am not the only person ever to have doubted the miraculous. Zechariah had difficulty believing that Elizabeth would bear a child at her advanced age. And Thomas would not believe that his friends had seen the risen Christ until he had seen him himself. If I'm something of a doubter myself, I think I'm in pretty good company.

Edited July 6, 2024 by Jamie123

[NeuroTypical]

23 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

It's almost a year now since my mother died

Sorry to hear that, @Jamie123.   I got a calendar popup a couple of years ago, it said "Congratulations NT, as of today, all this time you've spent on planet earth, your mom's presence in your life is now shorter than her absence."   I have an odd sense of humor, I didn't even remember setting that reminder for myself, much less doing the math to figure out the day.   Point is, I get it, and I'm sorry.

That said, we LDS really do have a take on death that is comforting, empowering, and ennobling.   We're all pretty sure that not only is there life after death, but that souls retain their personalities, that the important things that made our loved ones who they were, are still with them.  Plus, we also believe that our relationships survive death.  And through our temple ordinances, that includes family relationships.   I've been comforted for years knowing that I'll see my mom again.  We'll recognize each other.  The pains and sadnesses that burdened her in life won't be there any more.  

[Jamie123]

A couple more thoughts... I overuse my modest supply of poetry, I know, but this is Tennyson In Memoriam:

Quote

Perplext in faith, but pure in deeds,
         At last he beat his music out.
         There lives more faith in honest doubt,
Believe me, than in half the creeds.

He fought his doubts and gather'd strength,
         He would not make his judgment blind,
         He faced the spectres of the mind
And laid them: thus he came at length

To find a stronger faith his own;
         And Power was with him in the night,
         Which makes the darkness and the light,
And dwells not in the light alone,

But in the darkness and the cloud,
         As over Sinaï's peaks of old,
         While Israel made their gods of gold,
Altho' the trumpet blew so loud.

Perhaps Carb has gone through all this already and found "a stronger faith his own". If so, then good for him. As for me I have flashes of clarity now and then, but for much of the time I'm in "the darkness of the cloud". And (although its true I can't speak for other people) I don't believe I'm alone in there.

Perhaps if I was a little more "pure in deeds" I'd get on better, but that's something to work on.

Edited July 7, 2024 by Jamie123

[zil2]

FWIW, @Jamie123, belief in the reality of our spirit form, its existence prior to our mortal birth, and its continued existence after our mortal death are so critical to our faith that I don't see how any Latter-day Saint could not believe it.  We are the same individual moving through phases of existence.  Take that away and our teachings collapse - the purpose of life, the reason for our creation, eternal marriage, the sealing power, etc.  So much is "welded" to the idea that we are eternal beings, spirit children of God, progressing through pre-mortal, mortal, and post-mortal existence, eventually, to resurrection and beyond.

As to this:

On 7/5/2024 at 4:21 PM, Jamie123 said:

But where do they go?

Brigham Young taught that they are on this earth, just not visible to our eyes.  Elsewhere (one link below), though I can't remember the reference I'm thinking of, it's said that neither are they able to see us except when given permission (though one Joseph Smith quote makes me think that at least those bound for exaltation may have more options in this regard).

If interested, Gospel Topics Overview of the Spirit World.  (Over in the navigation bar, there's a gospel study link under the same topic. If you see things from Russell M. Nelson, check those out - I know he has taught something that seems similar to parts of the below.)

I found a copy of this experience in my parents' files after my Dad died. No idea how they came to have a copy (the man who related the experience isn't a relative as far as I know), but it seems to me like what I would expect the next life to be.

[Jamie123]

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

FWIW, @Jamie123, belief in the reality of our spirit form, its existence prior to our mortal birth, and its continued existence after our mortal death are so critical to our faith that I don't see how any Latter-day Saint could not believe it.  We are the same individual moving through phases of existence. 

This is a matter of some considerable interest to me. I've tried to give my honest thoughts on the matter, but perhaps I've underestimated how strong the feeling is on one side. When Person A is unsure about a thing Person B is utterly convinced of, he will inevitably have to entertain the possibility (not necessarily the certainty!) that Person B is mistaken. But perhaps there are times when he needs to keep his trap shut. If I've offended you Carb (or anyone else) I am sorry.

Edited July 7, 2024 by Jamie123

[zil2]

47 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

underestimated how strong the feeling is on one side.

I think that's probably the case. I assume that active, faithful, temple-going LDS are confident in the beliefs I mentioned above - I am beyond confident. Else there would be no point in having temples, no point to the Church.

52 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

When Person A is unsure about a thing Person B is utterly convinced of, he will inevitably have to entertain the possibility (not necessarily the certainty!) that Person B is mistaken.

In this case, it would be between 4 and 17 million people who are mistaken.

[Jamie123]

7 minutes ago, zil2 said:

In this case, it would be between 4 and 17 million people who are mistaken.

I'm an idiot I know, but I'm taking the bait. (I'll regret it later.) The alternative is that everyone who believes in "soul sleep" is mistaken, and that would include 8.7 million Jehovah's Witnesses and 21 million Seventh Day Adventists!

[zil2]

1 minute ago, Jamie123 said:

I'm an idiot I know, but I'm taking the bait. (I'll regret it later.) The alternative is that everyone who believes in "soul sleep" is mistaken, and that would include 8.7 million Jehovah's Witnesses and 21 million Seventh Day Adventists!

Exactly. But don't worry, you'll find out the truth no later than the day you die. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Exactly. But don't worry, you'll find out the truth no later than the day you die. 

I am convinced that a very great deal of what we know (or what we think we know) is not as important as we believe it to be. The knowledge we seek is truth, which is an understanding of how things really are, how things really were, and how things really will be. The key to this knowledge is to be utterly honest with yourself and, eventually, with others. And not all knowledge is of equal value.

We all believe a whole litany of wrong things, yet God does not condemn us for that. When the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda told the Lord why he was there, the Lord did not chastise him nor even correct him for his superstitious belief in angels troubling waters and people being healed if they jump in first. He just healed the man according to his desires. At that point, the former paralytic knew important, soul-saving truth, which had nothing to do with going into a pool of water after an angel had disturbed it. The man probably still believed the angel thing, but so what? That was not important. The man's salvation depended on him believing in Christ, not something about angels troubling waters.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

The key to this knowledge is to be utterly honest with yourself and, eventually, with others.

Based on some earlier threads I remember, this statement is going to ruffle a few feathers. It's essentially Polonius' advice to Laertes:

Quote

This above all: to thine own self be true, And it must follow, as the night the day, Thou canst not then be false to any man.

I remember arguing till I was blue in the face with someone who insisted that "true to yourself" and "true to God" must be mutually exclusive. I'll say it again: NO THEY'RE NOT!

Shakespeare may have given these lines to an annoying old windbag, but that doesn't make them wrong. Like Tennyson said, honest doubt is better than phony faith.

(Not that honest faith isn't better still!)

P.S. A few years ago my daughter played Polonius in school production of Hamlet. She was good!

Edited July 7, 2024 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

I am convinced that a very great deal of what we know (or what we think we know) is not as important as we believe it to be. The knowledge we seek is truth, which is an understanding of how things really are, how things really were, and how things really will be. The key to this knowledge is to be utterly honest with yourself and, eventually, with others. And not all knowledge is of equal value.

We all believe a whole litany of wrong things, yet God does not condemn us for that. When the paralytic at the pool of Bethesda told the Lord why he was there, the Lord did not chastise him nor even correct him for his superstitious belief in angels troubling waters and people being healed if they jump in first. He just healed the man according to his desires. At that point, the former paralytic knew important, soul-saving truth, which had nothing to do with going into a pool of water after an angel had disturbed it. The man probably still believed the angel thing, but so what? That was not important. The man's salvation depended on him believing in Christ, not something about angels troubling waters.

Thanks Vort: I've been pondering over this for the last few hours. I must have read this passage so many times, but I had no memory of the angel stirring the water. I was wondering about the Mandela effect, but then I looked it up in the Good News Bible, and verse 4 is missing. (It is in the footnotes, where it explains that only some manuscripts have it.) So it is likely missing in a lot of other Bibles too.

However, it states factually that the angel stirred up the water - not that it was a superstition. I've gotta look into this further. Thanks.

Edited July 8, 2024 by Jamie123
Typo

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

However, it states factually that the angel stirred up the water - not that it was a superstition. I've gotta look into this further. Thanks.

That's my private interpretation, neither preached nor (probably) sanctioned by other Latter-day Saints.

[Jamie123]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

That's my private interpretation, neither preached nor (probably) sanctioned by other Latter-day Saints.

I have a number of those as well. One of mine is John 8 (another passage that doesn't appear in all Bibles - my NIV has the whole section in italics) about the woman caught in adultery. I don't believe she was ever in any danger of stoning. I think the whole episode (not just the question) was set up to trap Jesus.

But as for John 5:4, I've looked it up in my other Bibles I keep at work. It is in the King James Bible, but the "big" NIV misses it out along with part of verse 3. (Though again it is mentioned in the footnotes.) The little pocket NIV New Testament I was given at school does have it, so I must have read it before at some point years ago. Interesting.

P.S. This page is quite interesting https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/did-an-angel-actually-stir-the-waters-at-bethesda-or-was-it-only-a-local-tradition/

Edited July 8, 2024 by Jamie123

[Ironhold]

12 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I have a number of those as well. One of mine is John 8 (another passage that doesn't appear in all Bibles - my NIV has the whole section in italics) about the woman caught in adultery. I don't believe she was ever in any danger of stoning. I think the whole episode (not just the question) was set up to trap Jesus.

But as for John 5:4, I've looked it up in my other Bibles I keep at work. It is in the King James Bible, but the "big" NIV misses it out along with part of verse 3. (Though again it is mentioned in the footnotes.) The little pocket NIV New Testament I was given at school does have it, so I must have read it before at some point years ago. Interesting.

P.S. This page is quite interesting https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/did-an-angel-actually-stir-the-waters-at-bethesda-or-was-it-only-a-local-tradition/

When the KJV was translated, they relied heavily on a work known as the Textus Receptus. Long story short, the Textus Receptus was dodgier than day-old sushi. 

Since then, a number of older documents have been recovered that represent older presentations of the books of the Bible, documents older than the ones used to create the Textus Receptus. Many of these older documents lack various verses and passages, such as the very much controversial "Johannine Comma" from 1 John: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_Comma . 

 The NIV and a number of more recent translations are based on these older documents, and as a result they have struggled to reconcile the lack of these verses and passages. The most common way is to retain the chapter and verse numbering used by the KJV but leave gaps in the main text, instead referring the reader to the footnotes or another supplementary passage. For obvious reasons, the KJV-Only crowd has had absolute fits over the matter and are claiming that it is "proof" the new translations are trying to steal gospel from people.