Spirit is just fine matter (Mormons)

[BartBurk]

I am reading Francis Sheed’s book “Theology for Beginners.” In one of the beginning chapters he defines Spirit. As a Mormon I always thought Spirit was material based on the following verse in Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8:

**“There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” **

Sheed’s book makes it clear that Christians believe all spirit is immaterial. God is pure spirit – the best I can figure out God is pure mind. It is our immaterial mind which is created in the image of God, not our bodies. When we die our body separates from our spirit which continues to live on as this immaterial mind until they are reunited at the time of the resurrection.

God is both pure spirit and infinite – God is outside of space and time until He manifests Himself materially through the incarnation in Jesus Christ. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a relationship of their immaterial minds which makes it much easier for me to see how they can exist as one God in three distinct persons because their minds are completely united in substance and purpose. If their spirits are material as LDS believe, I can see why they would have a hard time accepting the idea that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons existing as One God.

Admittedly, I could be misunderstanding what Sheed is trying to say. But I thought I would throw it out there for comment.

 

[shubbysr]

Your thoughts are correct. In simple terms, I think of spirit as the “voice” in my head, or even my conscious.
Is it material? You must have the thought before it happens.

 

[LittleDeb]

God is both pure spirit and infinite – God is outside of space and time until He manifests Himself materially through the incarnation in Jesus Christ. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a relationship of their immaterial minds which makes it much easier for me to see how they can exist as one God in three distinct persons because their minds are completely united in substance and purpose. If their spirits are material as LDS believe, I can see why they would have a hard time accepting the idea that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons existing as One God.

Admittedly, I could be misunderstanding what Sheed is trying to say. But I thought I would throw it out there for comment.

You make a good point in understanding LDS beliefs in the context of material spirit. It gives us insight but still is not enough. Even if the spirit of God were matter, He is still God. The LDS idea that the persons of the Trinity are separate at all still implies a “demi-god” status for the Son and Holy Spirit, ie more than One eternal, unchanging, Omni-present, Omni-potent, and Omni-cient God throughout time.

But, yes since they only hold to “one in purpose” and “God has a body” This does give some great insight into precisely where their theology goes wrong.

If you have a chance could you post that D & C in full context or provide a link, please? I only own a BoM and have only read that. I haven’t read D & C or PoGP.

 

[BartBurk]

Here is the full section from the D&C. The quote really stands all on its own:

scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/131

I think it is important to remember that LDS believe matter was not created by God. God organized the world out of pre-existing matter rather than creating it out of nothing. So I suppose it is possible for the spirit matter which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit to have existed co-eternally as God in the form of this spirit matter without any creation.

You make a good point in understanding LDS beliefs in the context of material spirit. It gives us insight but still is not enough. Even if the spirit of God were matter, He is still God. The LDS idea that the persons of the Trinity are separate at all still implies a “demi-god” status for the Son and Holy Spirit, ie more than One eternal, unchanging, Omni-present, Omni-potent, and Omni-cient God throughout time.

But, yes since they only hold to “one in purpose” and “God has a body” This does give some great insight into precisely where their theology goes wrong.

If you have a chance could you post that D & C in full context or provide a link, please? I only own a BoM and have only read that. I haven’t read D & C or PoGP.

 

[LittleDeb]

Here is the full section from the D&C. The quote really stands all on its own:

scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/131

Thanks for the link. It is good to see it in context. Interestingly, I had not realized that D&C was so convoluted. You’re right the quote does stand on its own. It seems to come out of nowhere. I don’t see a connection at all to the context!

I think it is important to remember that LDS believe matter was not created by God. God organized the world out of pre-existing matter rather than creating it out of nothing. So I suppose it is possible for the spirit matter which is Father, Son and Holy Spirit to have existed co-eternally as God in the form of this spirit matter without any creation.

Very good point! I had forgotten that belief. Has reading Sheed’s book given you some ideas for conversations with close friends or family who are still LDS? If so that would be another good reason for me to check it out. I have a lot of LDS friends and often times communication just breaks down because of vast differences in definitions.

 

[BartBurk]

Thanks for the link. It is good to see it in context. Interestingly, I had not realized that D&C was so convoluted. You’re right the quote does stand on its own. It seems to come out of nowhere. I don’t see a connection at all to the context!

Very good point! I had forgotten that belief. Has reading Sheed’s book given you some ideas for conversations with close friends or family who are still LDS? If so that would be another good reason for me to check it out. I have a lot of LDS friends and often times communication just breaks down because of vast differences in definitions.

Sheed’s book is excellent. I do think it is helping me better present the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the idea that Spirit is immaterial as opposed to material is the essence of our doctrinal difference with the LDS. Of course even if LDS doctrine had some validity they would have to overcome their belief in false scriptures like the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Their doctrine really doesn’t matter as long as they continue to sustain their scriptures as historical.

 

[zerinus]

I am reading Francis Sheed’s book “Theology for Beginners.” In one of the beginning chapters he defines Spirit. As a Mormon I always thought Spirit was material based on the following verse in Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8:

**“There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” **

Sheed’s book makes it clear that Christians believe all spirit is immaterial. God is pure spirit – the best I can figure out God is pure mind. It is our immaterial mind which is created in the image of God, not our bodies. When we die our body separates from our spirit which continues to live on as this immaterial mind until they are reunited at the time of the resurrection.

God is both pure spirit and infinite – God is outside of space and time until He manifests Himself materially through the incarnation in Jesus Christ. The relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a relationship of their immaterial minds which makes it much easier for me to see how they can exist as one God in three distinct persons because their minds are completely united in substance and purpose. If their spirits are material as LDS believe, I can see why they would have a hard time accepting the idea that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons existing as One God.

Admittedly, I could be misunderstanding what Sheed is trying to say. But I thought I would throw it out there for comment.

Who made Francis Sheed God’s authority on religion? Just because he said so, that don’t make it so. Everything has to be made of something. It can’t be made of nothing. Even “pure mind” (if such a thing existed) would have had to be made of something. The only thing that is made of nothing is nothing. The New Testament informs us that a spirit is something that can be seen (Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49; Luke 24:37–39). How can it be seen if it is made of nothing? Joseph Smith did not say that spirits are made of the materials of this world. What he said was that they are made of something, not just nothing.

zerinus

 

[BartBurk]

Who made Francis Sheed God’s authority on religion? Just because he said so, that don’t make it so. Everything has to be made of something. It can’t be made of nothing. Even “pure mind” (if such a thing existed) would have had to be made of something. The only thing that is made of nothing is nothing. The New Testament informs us that a spirit is something that can be seen (Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49; Luke 24:37–39). How can it be seen if it is made of nothing? Joseph Smith did not say that spirits are made of the materials of this world. What he said was that they are made of something, not just nothing.

zerinus

Sheed is presenting Catholic doctrine as taught by the Catholic Church so the real authority is the Church’s magisterium which he is just explaining to lay people. There aren’t any Mormons who try to explain authoritative Mormon doctrine? Of course it is often difficult to determine if there is such a thing as authoritative Mormon doctrine.

As for your New Testament readings, they simply indicate the apostles thought they had seen a spirit. They were wrong – they saw the physical Christ. It’s an interesting question as to whether someone can actually see a spirit. I never have. So I’ll throw that out there as well – is it possible to “see” an immaterial spirit? I know I have never actually seen someone’s mind.

 

[zerinus]

As for your New Testament readings, they simply indicate the apostles thought they had seen a spirit. They were wrong – they saw the physical Christ.

Not entirely. The context implies that they could have seen a spirit; but that on this occasion they hadn’t.

It’s an interesting question as to whether someone can actually see a spirit. I never have. So I’ll throw that out there as well – is it possible to “see” an immaterial spirit? I know I have never actually seen someone’s mind.

If spirits were truly “immaterial,” not only they could not be seen, they could not exist. There is no such thing as “immaterial” anything.

zerinus

 

[iamscifimike]

Is sheed using the scientific definition of matter that matter is anything with mass(loose definition)?

Does Covenants 131:7-8 mean that spirit has mass and can it be read scientifically?

I am Catholic forgive my asking if it is inappropriate.

 

[zerinus]

Is sheed using the scientific definition of matter that matter is anything with mass(loose definition)?

I have no idea what Sheed is talking about!

Does Covenants 131:7-8 mean that spirit has mass and can it be read scientifically?

No!

zerinus

 

[Valke2]

Your thoughts are correct. In simple terms, I think of spirit as the “voice” in my head, or even my conscious.
Is it material? You must have the thought before it happens.

you have to have the material before you can have the thought.

 

[BartBurk]

Not entirely. The context implies that they could have seen a spirit; but that on this occasion they hadn’t.

If spirits were truly “immaterial,” not only they could not be seen, they could not exist. There is no such thing as “immaterial” anything.

zerinus

I don’t see anything which conflicts with spirits or angels assuming human form to appear to humans. The Bible offers many warnings when it comes to seeking after spirits or listening to spirits so I think we have to be careful when we go down that road. God could be immaterial spirit (mind) and still have the power to appear to humans if He so desired. Is your mind material or is it something immaterial which is separate from your material brain?

 

[BartBurk]

Who made Francis Sheed God’s authority on religion? Just because he said so, that don’t make it so. Everything has to be made of something. It can’t be made of nothing. Even “pure mind” (if such a thing existed) would have had to be made of something. The only thing that is made of nothing is nothing. The New Testament informs us that a spirit is something that can be seen (Matthew 14:26; Mark 6:49; Luke 24:37–39). How can it be seen if it is made of nothing? Joseph Smith did not say that spirits are made of the materials of this world. What he said was that they are made of something, not just nothing.

zerinus

So what is your interpretation of this scripture?

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Hebrews 11:3)

 

[zerinus]

So what is your interpretation of this scripture?

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. (Hebrews 11:3)

Whatever it means, it does not mean (nor say) that spirits are “immaterial”.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

With all due respect and reverence to your views, by saying that spirits must be material places a limit on the Creator. Just because something seems impossible to us, it is not impossible to God. AS I understand it, angels are all will and intellect, and are therefore immaterial, yet they exist. God created this universe and God defined the laws of it, and, if He so chooses, God could make exceptions as He sees fit.

 

[NewSeeker]

Everything has to be made of something. It can’t be made of nothing. Even “pure mind” (if such a thing existed) would have had to be made of something. The only thing that is made of nothing is nothing.

This is a statement that is true only within the context of the physical laws of our universe, which is all we can know or experience. But God transcends space and time. He is not subject to those laws, and neither therefore are his creative acts. The processes outlined in the above quote do not apply to God or where he resides (beyond space and time). Even using the word “where” is problematic since there is no “where” there; it loses its meaning where there is no space.

NS

 

[zerinus]

This is a statement that is true only within the context of the physical laws of our universe, which is all we can know or experience. But God transcends space and time. He is not subject to those laws, and neither therefore are his creative acts. The processes outlined in the above quote do not apply to God or where he resides (beyond space and time). Even using the word “where” is problematic since there is no “where” there; it loses its meaning where there is no space.

NS

You seem to know a lot more about the “regions beyond space and time” than I do. I don’t think I am qualified to comment on that. I don’t know if we have any extra-terrestrial posters here. Maybe they would be qualified to comment.

zerinus

 

[NewSeeker]

You seem to know a lot more about the “regions beyond space and time” than I do. I don’t think I am qualified to comment on that. I don’t know if we have any extra-terrestrial posters here. Maybe they would be qualified to comment.

No Z., you’re still thinking from within that materialist box. We don’t need extra-terrestrials to help us. They live on a planet near Kolob and would have no knowledge of the realms beyond space and time. We heard from them already when they visited young Joseph in the Sacred Grove.

NS

 

[FCEGM]

Sheed’s book is excellent. I do think it is helping me better present the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Perhaps the idea that Spirit is immaterial as opposed to material is the essence of our doctrinal difference with the LDS. . .

Sheed is very helpful! While we all struggle with what St. John of the Cross writes here in The Living Flame of Love, stanza 3, regarding mistaking our natural appetites for the things of God, this does seem to be a particular problem for Mormons who have raised the natural to an object of essentially self-worship.

1. Oh, who can tell how impossible it is for a person with appetites to judge the things of God as they are! If there is to be success in judging the things of God, the appetites and satisfactions must be totally rejected, and these things of God must be weighed apart from them. For otherwise one will infallibly come to consider the things of God as not of God, and the things that are not of God as of God.

Since that cataract and cloud shrouds the eye of judgment, only the cataract is seen, sometimes of one color, sometimes another, according to the way the cataract appears to the eye. People judge that the cataract is God because, as I say, they see only the cataract that covers the faculty, and God cannot be grasped by the senses. Consequently the appetite and sensory gratifications impede the knowledge of high things. The Wise Man indicates this clearly with these words: The deceitfulness of vanity obscures good things, and the inconstancy of concupiscence overturns the innocent mind [Wis. 4:12], that is, good judgment.

1. Those who are not so spiritual as to be purged of appetites and satisfactions, but still keep in themselves something of the animal self, believe that things most vile and base to the spirit (those closest to the senses, according to which they are still living) are highly important; and those that are loftier and more precious to the spirit (those further withdrawn from the senses) are considered to be of little value and are not esteemed by them. They will even regard them sometimes as foolishness, as St. Paul clearly indicates: The animal self does not perceive the things of God; they are foolishness to it and it cannot understand them [1 Cor. 2:14].