<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More On the Nature of Spirits</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/</link>
	<description>Mormon Musings by yer ol' pals</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:02:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff J</title>
		<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/comment-page-3/#comment-391721</link>
		<dc:creator>Geoff J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:59:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcoolthang.com/?p=1521#comment-391721</guid>
		<description>Mark (#132 and #138), 

That is pretty radical idea you are preaching.  basically in your model there is virtually no continuity between a premortal us and current us (if a premortal us even exists at all in your model which is not clear).  In your model we are created basically from scratch here in our mortal bodies right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark (#132 and #138), </p>
<p>That is pretty radical idea you are preaching.  basically in your model there is virtually no continuity between a premortal us and current us (if a premortal us even exists at all in your model which is not clear).  In your model we are created basically from scratch here in our mortal bodies right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark D.</title>
		<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/comment-page-3/#comment-391657</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:21:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcoolthang.com/?p=1521#comment-391657</guid>
		<description>A. Davis, that is where &quot;nearly all cases&quot; comes in.   Some (relatively large) number could have been present, and the rest skip that stage entirely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A. Davis, that is where &#8220;nearly all cases&#8221; comes in.   Some (relatively large) number could have been present, and the rest skip that stage entirely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A. Davis</title>
		<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/comment-page-3/#comment-391631</link>
		<dc:creator>A. Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:17:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcoolthang.com/?p=1521#comment-391631</guid>
		<description>Mark D: &lt;em&gt;The difference for me, is I am inclined to delay bodily existence (as a person with an extended body) until mortality in nearly all cases. I donâ€™t have a hard reason to reject viviparous spirit birth (VSB) I just donâ€™t know what good it does in the general case.&lt;/em&gt;

What is the interpretation of your model of the council in heaven?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark D: <em>The difference for me, is I am inclined to delay bodily existence (as a person with an extended body) until mortality in nearly all cases. I donâ€™t have a hard reason to reject viviparous spirit birth (VSB) I just donâ€™t know what good it does in the general case.</em></p>
<p>What is the interpretation of your model of the council in heaven?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clark</title>
		<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/comment-page-3/#comment-391630</link>
		<dc:creator>Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcoolthang.com/?p=1521#comment-391630</guid>
		<description>Mark (135), I was referring more to the term &quot;The First Vision.&quot;  However you&#039;re right about the term.  This is true in the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1834-38/9Nov35.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;1835 version&lt;/a&gt; as well which is more interesting.  So that&#039;s a good argument about attributing the language use to Joseph.  However my point was less about the language use of Joseph than modern language use and just keeping clear a distinction.

The bigger point was that Joseph clearly thinks there&#039;s real entities there even if combined with the experience is a vision in the sense I was using it.  (A virtual reality presentation)  

&lt;blockquote&gt;an angel appeared before me, his hands and feet were naked pure and white, and he stood between the floors of the room, clothed with purity inexpressible, he said unto me I am a messenger sent from God, be faithful and keep his commandments in all things, he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham he explained many of the prophesies to me&lt;/blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark (135), I was referring more to the term &#8220;The First Vision.&#8221;  However you&#8217;re right about the term.  This is true in the <a href="http://www.boap.org/LDS/Parallel/1834-38/9Nov35.html" rel="nofollow">1835 version</a> as well which is more interesting.  So that&#8217;s a good argument about attributing the language use to Joseph.  However my point was less about the language use of Joseph than modern language use and just keeping clear a distinction.</p>
<p>The bigger point was that Joseph clearly thinks there&#8217;s real entities there even if combined with the experience is a vision in the sense I was using it.  (A virtual reality presentation)  </p>
<blockquote><p>an angel appeared before me, his hands and feet were naked pure and white, and he stood between the floors of the room, clothed with purity inexpressible, he said unto me I am a messenger sent from God, be faithful and keep his commandments in all things, he told me of a sacred record which was written on plates of gold, I saw in the vision the place where they were deposited, he said the Indians were the literal descendants of Abraham he explained many of the prophesies to me</p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark D.</title>
		<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/comment-page-3/#comment-391626</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:33:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcoolthang.com/?p=1521#comment-391626</guid>
		<description>I should add that of course that KFD implies an indestructible eternal mind, which isn&#039;t exactly simple, even if its spatial extent is negligible.

The particles I am thinking of are much more primitive - that is why I say a &quot;tinge&quot; of intelligence.  Brigham Young appeared to hold more or less the same position.  

Orson Pratt was in between, i.e. every spirit particle could potentially have a full blown mind and be in fully cognizant unity with the head particle. As impractical as that sounds, the idea of a head particle with a full eternal mind is more compatible with the KFD than the tinge of intelligence model, of course.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I should add that of course that KFD implies an indestructible eternal mind, which isn&#8217;t exactly simple, even if its spatial extent is negligible.</p>
<p>The particles I am thinking of are much more primitive &#8211; that is why I say a &#8220;tinge&#8221; of intelligence.  Brigham Young appeared to hold more or less the same position.  </p>
<p>Orson Pratt was in between, i.e. every spirit particle could potentially have a full blown mind and be in fully cognizant unity with the head particle. As impractical as that sounds, the idea of a head particle with a full eternal mind is more compatible with the KFD than the tinge of intelligence model, of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark D.</title>
		<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/comment-page-3/#comment-391625</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:25:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcoolthang.com/?p=1521#comment-391625</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t know whether the eternal aspect of us is necessarily a single, simple entity like a particle, but that is certainly the most consistent with the KFD.

As of late I am more sympathetic to the point of view that we were preceded by a number of particles each with a tinge of intelligence, not just one.  That is more like the Brigham Young / Orson Pratt view.  

The difference for me, is I am inclined to delay bodily existence (as a person with an extended body) until mortality in nearly all cases.  I don&#039;t have a hard reason to reject viviparous spirit birth (VSB) I just don&#039;t know what good it does in the general case.  

Post-mortality pre-resurrection is a different situation, as I mentioned above. We already have the essentials of a body, no reason to get rid of it completely.  Can&#039;t say I want to look like someone else in the next world either.  

I also don&#039;t see how one can remember or even (in the general case) preserve fundamental habits, discipline, and character unless the internal structure of the brain is preserved in some form or another.  The idea that our acquired character could be dumped on a computer disk isn&#039;t very appealing, although sometimes I admit it might be a logical possibility.  Either way, I can hardly believe that resurrection involves re-creating a person from a backup tape.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know whether the eternal aspect of us is necessarily a single, simple entity like a particle, but that is certainly the most consistent with the KFD.</p>
<p>As of late I am more sympathetic to the point of view that we were preceded by a number of particles each with a tinge of intelligence, not just one.  That is more like the Brigham Young / Orson Pratt view.  </p>
<p>The difference for me, is I am inclined to delay bodily existence (as a person with an extended body) until mortality in nearly all cases.  I don&#8217;t have a hard reason to reject viviparous spirit birth (VSB) I just don&#8217;t know what good it does in the general case.  </p>
<p>Post-mortality pre-resurrection is a different situation, as I mentioned above. We already have the essentials of a body, no reason to get rid of it completely.  Can&#8217;t say I want to look like someone else in the next world either.  </p>
<p>I also don&#8217;t see how one can remember or even (in the general case) preserve fundamental habits, discipline, and character unless the internal structure of the brain is preserved in some form or another.  The idea that our acquired character could be dumped on a computer disk isn&#8217;t very appealing, although sometimes I admit it might be a logical possibility.  Either way, I can hardly believe that resurrection involves re-creating a person from a backup tape.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A. Davis</title>
		<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/comment-page-3/#comment-391620</link>
		<dc:creator>A. Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:57:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcoolthang.com/?p=1521#comment-391620</guid>
		<description>Ah. I think the idea of the eternal, uncreate aspect of us (I avoid calling it a &quot;spirit&quot; to avoid ambiguity) is a particle very sound. I think the idea of how it can still be &quot;intelligent&quot; much more difficult - but have a few ideas. We&#039;ll have to have that discussion sometime (the Bohmian mechanics book I mentioned to you has been very interesting).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah. I think the idea of the eternal, uncreate aspect of us (I avoid calling it a &#8220;spirit&#8221; to avoid ambiguity) is a particle very sound. I think the idea of how it can still be &#8220;intelligent&#8221; much more difficult &#8211; but have a few ideas. We&#8217;ll have to have that discussion sometime (the Bohmian mechanics book I mentioned to you has been very interesting).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark D.</title>
		<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/comment-page-3/#comment-391610</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:53:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcoolthang.com/?p=1521#comment-391610</guid>
		<description>A. Davis, when I say &quot;extended body&quot;, I mean a body that is more than a single simple entity (i.e. a &quot;particle&quot;).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A. Davis, when I say &#8220;extended body&#8221;, I mean a body that is more than a single simple entity (i.e. a &#8220;particle&#8221;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark D.</title>
		<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/comment-page-3/#comment-391607</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark D.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:39:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcoolthang.com/?p=1521#comment-391607</guid>
		<description>Clark, Joseph Smith himself calls his experience a &quot;vision&quot; in JSH 1:21.  However, other than the verse (JSH 1:20) Geoff quoted, the account does read like an actual visit.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clark, Joseph Smith himself calls his experience a &#8220;vision&#8221; in JSH 1:21.  However, other than the verse (JSH 1:20) Geoff quoted, the account does read like an actual visit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A. Davis</title>
		<link>http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2009/11/more-on-the-nature-of-spirits/1521/comment-page-3/#comment-391605</link>
		<dc:creator>A. Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 17:32:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.newcoolthang.com/?p=1521#comment-391605</guid>
		<description>Mark D.: &lt;em&gt;I think there are a number of ways that a â€œspiritâ€ could be without an extended body prior to mortality. The main reason for this is the extended body pretty much has to go away prior to birth anyway...&lt;/em&gt;

Are you suggesting that a pre-mortal spirit might (or must?) not have physical extension prior to merger with a physical body?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mark D.: <em>I think there are a number of ways that a â€œspiritâ€ could be without an extended body prior to mortality. The main reason for this is the extended body pretty much has to go away prior to birth anyway&#8230;</em></p>
<p>Are you suggesting that a pre-mortal spirit might (or must?) not have physical extension prior to merger with a physical body?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (Requested URI is rejected)
Database Caching 1/14 queries in 0.049 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 315/319 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.newcoolthang.com @ 2012-02-10 14:00:59 -->
