"All spirit is matter" - Joseph Smith

[CHRISTINE77]

OK, so back around to the OP. Smith was gnostic. This teaching reflects that.

How was he a gnostic? I would be interested to hear your explanation.

I think he just was a person with a jumbled up understanding of theology, but loved to “explain” things to people. He must have had good leadership skills, because the stuff he said was so funny, and obviously made up on the spot.

I still haven’t heard the modern Mormon explanation here for spirit being material, but I’m pretty sure it is part of the LDS religious philosophy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

How was he a gnostic? I would be interested to hear your explanation.

I think he just was a person with a jumbled up understanding of theology, but loved to “explain” things to people. He must have had good leadership skills, because the stuff he said was so funny, and obviously made up on the spot.

I still haven’t heard the modern Mormon explanation here for spirit being material, but I’m pretty sure it is part of the LDS religious philosophy.

I recommend this article from gnosis.org

Joseph Smith: America’s Hermetic Prophet

 

[Ahimsa]

I recommend this article from gnosis.org

Joseph Smith: America’s Hermetic Prophet

“Gnostic” is such a diversely defined term that it helps to clarify exactly how Smith might have been “gnostic”.

In the early Church, “gnosis” was not a bad thing. Clement of Alexandria argued that true gnosis is founded on Christian faith. So, the true Christian is necessarily “gnostic”.

Gnosis simply refers to knowing. “Be still and know that I am God” – Psalm 46:10. Gnosis is an inherent part of the Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim) tradition.

A common trait among early Gnostics is their belief that matter was somehow created by an evil, or lesser, deity. Using this definition of gnostic, Joseph Smith was definitely not gnostic.

Another belief among early Gnostics is that knowledge alone saves, that is, secret knowledge of the structure of the physical and spiritual universe. Using this definition, Smith was not a gnostic, either. The Book of Mormon, for instance, is not interested at all in depicting the type of cosmologies that you see in the early Gnostic texts.

Smith was hugely influenced by Jewish Kabbalah, and by Hermeticism, but to call those “gnostic” is, in my opinion, to mis-characterize them.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

“Gnostic” is such a diversely defined term that it helps to clarify exactly how Smith might have been “gnostic”.

In the early Church, “gnosis” was not a bad thing. Clement of Alexandria argued that true gnosis is founded on Christian faith. So, the true Christian is necessarily “gnostic”.

Gnosis simply refers to knowing. “Be still and know that I am God” – Psalm 46:10. Gnosis is an inherent part of the Christian (and Jewish, and Muslim) tradition.

A common trait among early Gnostics is their belief that matter was somehow created by an evil, or lesser, deity. Using this definition of gnostic, Joseph Smith was definitely not gnostic.

Another belief among early Gnostics is that knowledge alone saves, that is, secret knowledge of the structure of the physical and spiritual universe. Using this definition, Smith was not a gnostic, either. The Book of Mormon, for instance, is not interested at all in depicting the type of cosmologies that you see in the early Gnostic texts.

Smith was hugely influenced by Jewish Kabbalah, and by Hermeticism, but to call those “gnostic” is, in my opinion, to mis-characterize them.

I agree with you, I don’t think Smith was a gnostic either. But I don’t know that he was “hugely” influenced by the Kaabbalah and Egyptian religions. I think he dappled in a lot of things, including witchcraft and Christianity, but wasn’t really very educated in any of them. He would have fit well in to the 1970’s as a new agey, cult leader.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen,

Yes–that’s what I was saying. That means the “new covenant” included part of the “old covenant”, which means that the analogy used by Paul about marriage doesn’t mean the “old marriage” stopped at the death of the husband. It means parts of the “old covenant” stopped (were fulfilled through Christ), but parts certainly were not, so the analogy doesn’t demonstrate that there is no such thing as “eternal marriage”. (That is what SteveVH and Soren1 were trying to demonstrate by pointing out that analogy. You may look at the other thread and see their comments, which were very specific.)

In fact, if one looks deeply at the analogy and at what the house of Israel was being asked to do before all the lesser law was established, then one could see that those parts of the “old covenant” that were retained within the “new covenant” were the eternally significant parts. “Eternal marriage” fits within that view of how the “old covenant” became more perfect with the “new covenant”, with more to it that was eternally significant.

Seems like you forgot about Jesus Christ.

 

[ParkerD]

Seems like you forgot about Jesus Christ.

Stephen168,

That’s OK. I hadn’t forgotten about the Savior. I had Him totally in mind, as my post noted and my earlier post to you about the Two Great Commandments which He responded about in His teachings noted also.

Jesus is Jehovah, as I am supposing you know, so that means He had given Moses the Law including the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments, and knew perfectly well why they are important for the happiness of mankind to live by them to the absolute best of their abilities and intentions.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Jesus is Jehovah, as I am supposing you know, so that means He had given Moses the Law including the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments, and knew perfectly well why they are important for the happiness of mankind to live by them to the absolute best of their abilities and intentions.

QUOTE:
Preface to the Revised Standard Version [a Protestant translation]

The form “Jehovah” is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of
the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an
entirely different word.

…]

(1)…[T]he word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use for any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other Gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.

End quote

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha
Revised Standard Version
Oxford University Press
New York, 1973, 1977

No, Parker, Jesus is not Jehovah.

Jim Dandy

 

[Ahimsa]

QUOTE:

(1)…[T]he word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew…

The word “Jesus” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew.

Not only is Jesus not Jehovah, Jesus isn’t even “Jesus”.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

**Luke 24 (NIV)

37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.

38He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?

39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”

40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence. **

Christ’s resurrected body has flesh and bones. So you’re saying that the flesh and bones are not material? What does it really mean to be bodily resurrected? Obviously our bodies will not be the same as they are now, but will be glorified, however I fail to see how that means that they are not material, especially when Jesus contrasts “spirit”/“ghost” with His resurrected body. This article from this very website states that-"But it does seem that heaven has something corresponding to space. It may not be anything remotely like space as we experience it, but heaven does seem to have the ability to receive bodies into it. Christ took his body with him to heaven when he ascended. Mary took her body when she was assumed. A few others—such as Enoch, Elijah, and perhaps Moses—also seem to have their bodies with them in heaven." There are many more examples of such statements by Catholic apologists and clergy. It is quite clear from this that Heaven has at least some degree of “where” because of the bodily resurrection and the bodily assumption of various persons to Heaven. Thus my previous points…

We have no idea what a resurrected, glorified body looks like, or if it can be seen with normal human eyes – w/o supernatural intervention – at all. Christ was demonstrating to His Apostles that His resurrection was real, thus His manifestation to them “as flesh and bones.” This does not mean that His Glorified Body occupies space.

In John 20:19-29, the resurrected Jesus passed through locked doors to “stand in their [the Apostles’] midst.” This is the same event recounted in Luke 24. “… he showed them his hands and his feet.” Flesh and bones, being material, do not pass through locked doors.

Since He was God, He could manifest Himself to His Apostles any way He wished.

So my answer to your Q “So you’re saying that the flesh and bones are not material?” is – in this instance – YES. That’s not what ***I ***am saying; it’s what the Scriptures say. You must read everything that pertains to a particular subject to know the totality of what the Bible says about it.

And these Scriptures most certainly do not mean that your Earth God (aka “Heavenly Father”) is flesh and bones “like us,” as Mormons believe.

I wouldn’t have any interest in what Mormons believe if they didn’t falsely claim to be
Christian.

Jim Dandy

 

[Crdl2Grv]

Soren1,
I am glad to see that Catholics believe God can be worshiped everywhere, since I have often seen a comment that said someone needed to stop by their parish or cathedral to go in and pray, or was encouraging someone else to do that.

With respect, you are being deliberately obtuse, here. You’re obviously not a stupid person, and resolving this “inconsistency” is not nearly as difficult as you’re making it out to be.

Anyone with a cursory understanding of Catholicism specifically (and Christianity in general) would know that Christians do not need to be in a church or a cathedral in order to pray. Obviously, it’s preferable to be in some kind chapel, church, cathedral or other sacred space. But it’s obviously not necessary.

And when I say “preferable” I mean it’s preferable for humans to be in a church. Not preferable for God. God can hear us just fine wherever we are. It’s just a little easier for us to speak to God in a more sacred setting than in, say, the upper deck of Comerica Park during the MLB playoffs (although I suspect you’ll find a whole lot of Catholics - and Protestants and Mormons - praying during sporting events).

Let me give you an example from my own life. I used to be lucky enough to live two blocks away from a Catholic Church. I really enjoyed occasionally walking over there in the afternoon and saying the rosary. A nice short walk to clear my head a bit. The familiar smell of the church when I opened the door. Look up at the cross over the altar, kneel down in the pews… it’s all just a series of physical elements that make it easier for me to concentrate on prayer.

But that’s the key: it makes it easier for me. Not for God. God can hear me just as well now, when I don’t live within walking distance of a church, and I have to say the occasional afternoon rosary in my bedroom. Or my backyard. Or in my car.

Honestly, this isn’t difficult stuff to understand. That’s why people roll their eyes when you, who obviously have more than an average-sized intellect, pretend like you don’t “get” it. I mean, come on. You’ve never heard of or seen a Catholic family “saying grace” before a meal?

 

[Stephen168]

Jesus is Jehovah, as I am supposing you know, so that means He had given Moses the Law including the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments, and knew perfectly well why they are important for the happiness of mankind to live by them to the absolute best of their abilities and intentions.

Why don’t Mormons follow all the Old Testaments laws like those in Leviticus?

 

[Tony888]

Why don’t Mormons follow all the Old Testaments laws like those in Leviticus?

I believe many of the old laws are no longer in force, due to continuing revelation. For example, the vision experienced by Peter in the Book of Acts ended the dietary laws.

Other laws were specific for Israel, who was buiding a nation at the time

And then some Old Testament laws remain as law, like the ten commandments.

 

[ParkerD]

With respect, you are being deliberately obtuse, here. You’re obviously not a stupid person, and resolving this “inconsistency” is not nearly as difficult as you’re making it out to be.

Anyone with a cursory understanding of Catholicism specifically (and Christianity in general) would know that Christians do not need to be in a church or a cathedral in order to pray. Obviously, it’s preferable to be in some kind chapel, church, cathedral or other sacred space. But it’s obviously not necessary.

And when I say “preferable” I mean it’s preferable for humans to be in a church. Not preferable for God. God can hear us just fine wherever we are. It’s just a little easier for us to speak to God in a more sacred setting than in, say, the upper deck of Comerica Park during the MLB playoffs (although I suspect you’ll find a whole lot of Catholics - and Protestants and Mormons - praying during sporting events).

Let me give you an example from my own life. I used to be lucky enough to live two blocks away from a Catholic Church. I really enjoyed occasionally walking over there in the afternoon and saying the rosary. A nice short walk to clear my head a bit. The familiar smell of the church when I opened the door. Look up at the cross over the altar, kneel down in the pews… it’s all just a series of physical elements that make it easier for me to concentrate on prayer.

But that’s the key: it makes it easier for me. Not for God. God can hear me just as well now, when I don’t live within walking distance of a church, and I have to say the occasional afternoon rosary in my bedroom. Or my backyard. Or in my car.

Honestly, this isn’t difficult stuff to understand. That’s why people roll their eyes when you, who obviously have more than an average-sized intellect, pretend like you don’t “get” it. I mean, come on. You’ve never heard of or seen a Catholic family “saying grace” before a meal?

Cradle to Grave,

Thanks. I wasn’t writing about the act of saying grace. I was writing about independent, unrehearsed, heartfelt prayer with words from the heart, and that happens well in the privacy of one’s own domicile. But I appreciate hearing about your approach to prayer, so, thanks.

 

[ParkerD]

Why don’t Mormons follow all the Old Testaments laws like those in Leviticus?

Stephen,

Because the Savior revealed that all those preparatory laws and the law of sacrifice had been fulfilled, and because Jeremiah prophesied about the “New Covenant” which would imply “new laws”.

I liked RebeccaJ’s explanation about the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments, and I don’t see a great deal of difference other than when someone takes Paul’s writing in Romans 7 and says the analogy means “eternal marriage” was being taught against, as I had explained earlier.

 

[1voice]

The point is the Mormons believe that God was a man at one time.

Yeah, That one point is enough to make me scratch my head. Where is that in the Bible?
I noticed that the issue is not addressed when presented … or the response is some cloudy metaphor that makes no sense to me.

 

[ParkerD]

Yeah, That one point is enough to make me scratch my head. Where is that in the Bible?
I noticed that the issue is not addressed when presented … or the response is some cloudy metaphor that makes no sense to me.

1voice,

Jesus was resurrected with a perfect body, and still has that perfect body, and will still have that perfect body when He returns to the earth in the Second Coming. It is not something to apologize about or that makes Him less omnipotent, less loving, less omniscient, less compassionate, less glorified, or “less perfect”. He is perfectly perfect and has those qualities to perfection.

Jesus said that to see Him was to see His Father who sent Him. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the Father. These can be made into “metaphors”, or the words can be taken literally. They certainly don’t necessarily or with logical consistency mean that the Father is “only” a Spirit, nor that being “only” a Spirit would be more glorious (see above paragraph) than having a glorified, perfect body just as Jesus has.

 

[1voice]

1voice,

Jesus was resurrected with a perfect body, and still has that perfect body, and will still have that perfect body when He returns to the earth in the Second Coming. It is not something to apologize about or that makes Him less omnipotent, less loving, less omniscient, less compassionate, less glorified, or “less perfect”. He is perfectly perfect and has those qualities to perfection.

Jesus said that to see Him was to see His Father who sent Him. Stephen saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the Father. These can be made into “metaphors”, or the words can be taken literally. They certainly don’t necessarily or with logical consistency mean that the Father is “only” a Spirit, nor that being “only” a Spirit would be more glorious (see above paragraph) than having a glorified, perfect body just as Jesus has.

The Bible states that Jesus was born into the human race in order to redeem the human race. That is not the question. The question is… where does it say in the Bible that God the Father was ever a human being (implying that he had a weak human nature). He created human beings just as he created angels … Jesus became a man for a specific purpose and he is still a human being containing the nature and character of God … but it says specifically in the Bible that God the Father is not a man. “God is spirit and those who worship him worship in spirit and truth” … Jesus became a man at a specific point in history. Before that he was a spirit without a human body or human soul.

 

[Stephen168]

Another area of inconsistency was the conversation I had with SteveVH and Soren1 on the “LDS Beliefs about Jesus Christ” thread, where they seemed to imply by analogy that the Ten Commandments had “died” with the “old law”,………………. The inconsistency is that of course Catholics believe in the Ten Commandments, and the Two Great Commandments, and those haven’t “died.” ………… Parts of the “old law” were still very much in effect.

Why don’t Mormons follow all the Old Testaments laws like those in Leviticus?

Because the Savior revealed that all those preparatory laws and the law of sacrifice had been fulfilled, and because Jeremiah prophesied about the “New Covenant” which would imply “new laws”.

That is correct. We have a new covenant in Christ, so all laws are new. If they happen to be the same as an old law it is because of Christ. So you see how there is no inconsistency in Catholic teaching in this area, either.

 

[ParkerD]

The Bible states that Jesus was born into the human race in order to redeem the human race. That is not the question. The question is… where does it say in the Bible that God the Father was ever a human being (implying that he had a weak human nature). He created human beings just as he created angels … Jesus became a man for a specific purpose and he is still a human being containing the nature and character of God … but it says specifically in the Bible that God the Father is not a man. “God is spirit and those who worship him worship in spirit and truth” … Jesus became a man at a specific point in history. Before that he was a spirit without a human body or human soul.

1Voice,

Jesus didn’t have a “weak human nature”. Jesus said He was like His Father.

As far as “God is spirit and those who worship him worship in spirit and in truth” then the question should well be asked,

why can’t God be worshiped in spirit (meaning our spirit is involved in the worship, and our body also–our mind, our feelings and emotions, our desire and commitment, our whole soul) and in truth (meaning that if we are doing true worship we will not be doing any sort of “faking” and will not be holding back from disclosing our innermost thoughts, feelings, emotions, “heart”–and also that the worshiper needs to have in mind a true relationship with God, where He is listening intimately and with full involvement and concentration, and yet have a physical body while being the Recipient of our worship?

God is all-loving power, energy, Light, Truth, Goodness, upholding all things by the word of His power and by the energy that emanates from His Person and extends throughout the universe. He can do that because He is Spirit with power, knowledge, and Truth emanating from His Person. This can happen from a Being with a physical body, as Jesus showed when He lived on the earth and when He was resurrected with an eternally perfect physical body which He will always have for all eternity.

Jesus was and is Spirit and Truth also. To have a body is not to have a limitation about being Spirit and Truth.

 

[Telstar]

[11]
For what man knoweth the things of a man, but the spirit of a man that is in him? So the things also that are of God no man knoweth, but the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God; that we may know the things that are given us from God. [13] Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. [14] But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. [15] But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man.

In other words, those who can only perceive of spiritual things, as if they were looking at them through their ‘human eyes’ and judging them by their own tactile perceptions and beliefs, without the full understanding of the Holy Spirit, will never be able to understand those things that are purely spiritual in nature. Only those that are truly inspired and influenced by the Holy Spirit can ever fully understand any of those things.