Operational Dynamics of “Reasoned Faith”

[Limnor]

Am I over complicating this subject?

I don’t think you’re overcomplicating it, you’re following the line of reasoning to a logical conclusion. If matter and intelligences are eternal, then death is not really loss of life itself. That’s a clear difference from Pauline thought, where death has the potential for significant impact and loss, not just a step forward.

[Gadianton]

In the Genesis version, God forms the human from dust and breathes into him the breath or spirit of life, and the human becomes a living being. The logic is a person is not a body alone, nor is a person spirit alone, but rather a combination of the two.

So that spirit of life is what makes life happen, not a separate mini-person that “is” the person. You don’t “have” a soul the way you possess something, rather you “are” a living soul when God’s breath animates you. That spirit is what makes a body alive rather than dead, it’s not a prepackaged “you” waiting to be inserted.

I think that’s why Genesis says “became a living being,” and not “received a living being.”

I think you're really getting to the point, but I think there are a variety of perspectives even within Christianity. Aquinas, as mentioned, believed essentially as the JWs do.

Now prepare to have your mind blown, because Mormonism can save itself in just the way you're talking about. In Genesis, it says God formed the body and then breathed into it the breath of life and man became a living soul. The JWs correctly point out that Christians misspeak all the time when they talk about their "soul" as the spiritual counterpart to the body. It's the two together as configured by God. But guess what? In the Book of Abraham, this doctrine is corrected to be, God put the spirit into the body, then breathed upon it the breath of life, and then man became a living soul! Now you have 5 things: An intelligence. A spirit. A body. a breath from God. A soul. The JWs do have the simplest answer to it. Although, the Old Testament isn't theological, and so on the one hand, God animates clay with his breath, the breath goes back to God when the body does, but then a shade remains in Sheol. Neither the shade nor breath is a mini-you Theosophy-Society spirit. And these ideas swirled around over thousands of years, and so I doubt there's a consistent answer. But Mormons can say that death is the decomposition of the living soul like anybody else.

The obvious objection to Mormonism is that it's not really a composition; it's not like baking a cake with 4 ingredients, as the first ingredient, the intelligence, is a mini fully-baked cake, or at least it's the full flavor of the fully-baked cake absent a physical cake. However, to be consistent, if the Christian version is a composition, then the spirit = breath has got to be a bit of an abstraction, and one not really capable of an out-of-body experience or a near-death experience.

[Limnor]

Gad, I’m going to study your post, but first I want to draw a line back to the original post:

This is where we can return to the appeal to “reasoned faith” in the original post: practitioners want the “prestige of reason while maintaining doctrinal commitments that resist empirical or textual scrutiny.”

The system may be internally logical, once its premises are assumed, but reasoned faith would still ask whether those premises actually arise from the texts that are said to ground them.

When a faith tradition claims restoration or continuity with ancient scripture, reason should account for derivations from the text, and not just present internal logical consistency. Otherwise, reason is only explaining the system, unrelated to its claimed origins.

Edited: corrected “test” to “resist”

[Limnor]

Aquinas, as mentioned, believed essentially as the JWs do.

Part 1 of my study is a simple review of Wikipedia and then follow it where it leads—I thought this part was funny and believe you would chuckle too:

“He [Aquinas] has been criticized, notably by Bertrand Russell, for seeking to justify conclusions already dictated by faith rather than follow reason independently.”

[Limnor]

I think you're really getting to the point, but I think there are a variety of perspectives even within Christianity. Aquinas, as mentioned, believed essentially as the JWs do.

Now prepare to have your mind blown, because Mormonism can save itself in just the way you're talking about. In Genesis, it says God formed the body and then breathed into it the breath of life and man became a living soul. The JWs correctly point out that Christians misspeak all the time when they talk about their "soul" as the spiritual counterpart to the body. It's the two together as configured by God.

Part 1:

You are right that there are many explanations over centuries regarding this topic, but I think there is a fine distinction worth pointing out vis Aquinas, JWs, and Paul about souls (by the way, every time I say soul I think of the video of the kid the South Park guys lambasted).

Based on my amateur (at best) understanding, when Aquinas says the soul is the “form” of the body, he doesn’t mean the soul disappears when the body dies—please correct me if you believe I’m misreading. “Form” is more like “that which makes a thing the kind of thing it is.” So the soul is what makes the body a living thing instead of a corpse.

Which is, I think, a separation between Aquinas and the JW annihilation view. Per Aquinas, The soul is naturally ordered to the body, but it is not entirely dependent on matter, and can therefore subsist after death, though incompletely. He essentially says the separated soul is not the human person in full.

Jehovah’s Witness theology holds that (again this is from my amateur pov) the soul “is” the living body, consciousness is entirely bodily, and at death, the person ceases to exist. Resurrection is a complete re-creation from God’s memory. I think Aquinas would disagree with this.

Even though the soul survives, Aquinas would say death is a loss, even if not total annihilation, which I think is in alignment with Paul. I see Aquinas rejecting Plato and annihilationism at the same time.

I’m still thinking through the second part regarding Joseph’s innovation.

[huckelberry]

Hound, I was thinking of that time when life stops for your body and people put your body in a box and bury it in the ground.

Yes, I understood you're meaning. But please follow my reasoning for a second, if you would.

Joseph taught that the elements are eternal. That which has a beginning will surely have and end, but that which had no beginning will have no end.

Joseph outright rejected the traditional view of ex nihilo, instead he taught that God organizes preexisting matter. In my opinion, this means that matter is co eternal with God, they were never created, therefore, they cannot be destroyed.

Am I over complicating this subject?

If im understanding you correctly, you're defining death as the separation of the physical and spiritual body.

Hound I believe that you are presenting LDS view correctly. From the vantage of people living here death presents loss Mormons see as only temporary. You may be looking at the same difference Limnor is noticing in Paul. I can see you have a point.

[huckelberry]

Aquinas, as mentioned, believed essentially as the JWs do.

Part 1 of my study is a simple review of Wikipedia and then follow it where it leads—I thought this part was funny and believe you would chuckle too:

“He [Aquinas] has been criticized, notably by Bertrand Russell, for seeking to justify conclusions already dictated by faith rather than follow reason independently.”

I am pretty sure that Aquinas thought a person's soul continues in a limited way. I check my understanding a bit. Google links a number of direct sources for Aquinas discussion of the matter. Souls live and sink or rise toward heaven after death.

[Limnor]

Part 1 of my study is a simple review of Wikipedia and then follow it where it leads—I thought this part was funny and believe you would chuckle too:

“He [Aquinas] has been criticized, notably by Bertrand Russell, for seeking to justify conclusions already dictated by faith rather than follow reason independently.”

I am pretty sure that Aquinas thought a person's soul continues in a limited way. I check my understanding a bit. Google links a number of direct sources for Aquinas discussion of the matter. Souls live and sink or rise toward heaven after death.

This is how I’m reading Aquinas’ view, Huck:

“Per Aquinas, The soul is naturally ordered to the body, but it is not entirely dependent on matter, and can therefore subsist after death, though incompletely. He essentially says the separated soul is not the human person in full.”

Let me know if that differs from your understanding of Aquinas.

[Limnor]

But guess what? In the Book of Abraham, this doctrine is corrected to be, God put the spirit into the body, then breathed upon it the breath of life, and then man became a living soul! Now you have 5 things: An intelligence. A spirit. A body. a breath from God. A soul. The JWs do have the simplest answer to it. Although, the Old Testament isn't theological, and so on the one hand, God animates clay with his breath, the breath goes back to God when the body does, but then a shade remains in Sheol. Neither the shade nor breath is a mini-you Theosophy-Society spirit. And these ideas swirled around over thousands of years, and so I doubt there's a consistent answer. But Mormons can say that death is the decomposition of the living soul like anybody else.

The obvious objection to Mormonism is that it's not really a composition; it's not like baking a cake with 4 ingredients, as the first ingredient, the intelligence, is a mini fully-baked cake, or at least it's the full flavor of the fully-baked cake absent a physical cake. However, to be consistent, if the Christian version is a composition, then the spirit = breath has got to be a bit of an abstraction, and one not really capable of an out-of-body experience or a near-death experience.

Part 2

That makes sense to me, and I think you’re being fair to both sides. The Mormon explanation preserves continuation of the person by inserting a pre-embodied self, which means composition doesn’t do the same ontological work it does in Genesis or Paul.

Christianity preserves composition and rupture, but that makes “spirit” a more abstract principle. Each model resolves certain things but inherits others.

The cake metaphor is apt. I’d also offer these explanations (Aquinas/Smith/JW, among others) are later constructions designed to solve tensions the texts themselves leave unresolved. Smith just took it a step further by creating an additional ancient text to support his version.

[Limnor]

if the Christian version is a composition, then the spirit = breath has got to be a bit of an abstraction, and one not really capable of an out-of-body experience or a near-death experience.

I’ve noticed the attempted use of NDEs and OBEs as support for LDS claims, but I haven’t followed closely, mostly because it doesn’t really move the needle for me either way.

Christianity has always allowed for similar experiences, visions and etc, but it doesn’t use them proof of anything—they generally involve some eschatological lesson or view. Paul himself doesn’t talk about the mechanics of his own claimed experience. Those experiences may be meaningful to people, but i wouldn’t treat them as a map of how reality works.

Even if you grant the experiences as valuable to individuals (if the people experiencing the visions are being honest), they don’t really do much to contribute to pre-mortal identity or continuity of the self in the way LDS theology wants them to.

While I don’t deny the experiences, I am generally skeptical, and just don’t see them as evidence one way or the other of LDS, or any other for that matter, claims.