Daniel Peterson and D&C 131.

[Marcus]

way ahead of you. That's what happens when you make statements you can't support.

This is what happens when you dance around in circles with your eyes closed.

I'd suggest opening your eyes then. That does explain a lot, however. : D

[MG 2.0]

This is what happens when you dance around in circles with your eyes closed.

I'd suggest opening your eyes then. That does explain a lot, however. : D

Referring to you.

It is interesting, isn’t it, that we both observe each other as though we are on similar ground?

If you want to believe you’re taking the high ground, so be it.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

I'd suggest opening your eyes then. That does explain a lot, however. : D

Referring to you.

It is interesting, isn’t it, that we both observe each other as though we are on similar ground?

If you want to believe you’re taking the high ground, so be it.

Or you could just stick to discussing the topic of the thread and leave this other one-upmanship nonsense out. : D

[dantana]

Well, I guess they, whoever they are, and if they happen to think about it, could always fall back on the realm before spiritland. Also known as the intelligence realm. (IR) Since J. Smith didn't, and isn't around to - declare that consciousness there is also made of solid things, then there is their out.

If I were a 'they', I would assert that spiritland is just one of the stops on the way, so of course spirit bodies are made of particles. That's how guys/gals from the IR that are in those bodies are able to muck around at stuff.

I guess actually, the Morms are sitting pretty good, as they have many bases covered. Mainline deity theory, physicalism, and also reincarnation, since in essence, spiritland the IR and mortality are - same guy/gal, different life.

[PseudoPaul]

This is one area where Joseph Smith actually got a bullseye - ancient writers like Paul also had the same concept that Joseph Smith described, contra to DC Peterson's beliefs.

PseudoPaul, I am not thinking or remembering how Paul addressed this particular little matter. (or is direct explanation immaterial when overall assumptions can stand?)

I guess not specifically just Paul, but really anyone anciently who believed in this kind of thing:

https://ehrmanblog.org/did-paul-belief- ... surrected/

"Second point. In ancient ways of thinking, the body was not the ONLY material part of a human. Humans also have souls and spirits. And for ancient people, souls and spirits were MATERIAL entities, not IMMATERIAL entities (as they are for us). For *us* the difference between soul and body is visible/invisible or material/immaterial or substantial/insubstantial. That’s not how the ancients saw it. For the ancients, soul and spirit were made up of *stuff*. They were material entities. But their material was much finer, more refined, than the clunky shell of our body."

"And so, if an ancient apocalypticist like Paul talked about a spiritual body, he meant a body that is no longer made up of just this clunky meat, it is a body of a more refined substance; it is still matter, but it is a different kind of matter. When Paul thought Jesus was physically raised from the dead, that was NOT a contradiction to his claim that Jesus had a spiritual body at the resurrection. Spiritual bodies *were* physical. We too will be raised (for Paul) into spiritual bodies. At that time we will not have “flesh,” because sin will no longer have any role to play in our existence. But when he says this, he means it in the ancient, not the modern, sense."

"If you want to read up on ancient understandings of body, flesh, spirit, soul (especially as these are physical entities, not immaterial), I’d suggest you read the book by my friend Dale Martin, professor of New Testament at Yale, The Corinthian Body."

"Later Christian theologians who were NOT raised in Jewish apocalyptic thinking did not make this distinction that Paul made between body and flesh, leading to all sorts of confusions. They stressed the “resurrection of the flesh,” which for Paul would have been nonsense. For Paul, flesh and blood do not inherit the kingdom of God. They are done away with, because people are raised in spiritual bodies, just as Christ was. But later theologians (for example, Tertullian) did not make this distinction and stressed that it is precisely the “flesh” that comes to be raised. By that, he meant what Paul meant when he talked about “body.”"

"One of the ironies that was created is that later theologians stressed the resurrection of the flesh thinking that they were advocating Paul’s view, e.g., against Gnostics. In fact, they were not advocating Paul’s view at all, since Paul did not think the flesh would be raised."

[huckelberry]

PseudoPaul, thanks for the relevant Ehrman observations. I remain inclined to think distinctions between what people mean with the words matter spirit and immaterial are fuzzy. If there is a something , spirit, separate from events and patterns in material existence I do not think we know anything about it.