According To The Lds View Of Revelation...

[altersteve]

Oh no you don’t! Think about it more, and some day you might.

I think you're being too confrontational about this. There's a lot of room for interpretation on this subject.

[mathonihah]

The scriptures seem to speak of truth, light, and Spirit as equivalents.

Edited December 3, 2012 by mathonihah

[CV75]

The scriptures seem to speak of truth, light, and Spirit as equivalents.

Sometimes they do, and some times they don't. My recent posts have largely focused on how they are not equivalent (intelligence as well).

[CV75]

Oh no you don’t! Think about it more, and some day you might.

You mean, think about an attribute being as equal to the person, place, thing, idea, etc. to which the attribute is attributed? Why would anyone do that?

[harfad]

I think you're being too confrontational about this. There's a lot of room for interpretation on this subject.

What you call interpretation, I call speculation. I would rather stick to what the scripture actually says, rather than what I would like it to have said, or think it should have said, but somehow didn’t manage to say it.

[harfad]

You mean, think about an attribute being as equal to the person, place, thing, idea, etc. to which the attribute is attributed? Why would anyone do that?

No. But when two things are assigned the same attributes, there comes a point where we must conclude that they refer to the same things, though perhaps called by different names.

[CV75]

What you call interpretation, I call speculation. I would rather stick to what the scripture actually says, rather than what I would like it to have said, or think it should have said, but somehow didn’t manage to say it.

The scriptures are more than formulae.

[CV75]

No. But when two things are assigned the same attributes, there comes a point where we must conclude that they refer to the same things, though perhaps called by different names.

You say “No,” then affirm the very same concept. Where chocolate and coffee are each “hot” or each a “liquid,” it is incorrect to conclude that the hot chocolate and hot coffee refer to the same things. They are not the same things, and they are not the same as “hot” and “liquid” either, even if all four things were called by the same name. The “hotness” and the “liquidity” of the chocolate and the coffee are also different since these attributes are identified with two different things. The molecules of each are moving so as to produce their own heat, not one another’s heat. Even if you were to mix the two liquids, the chocolate and coffee molecules affect the rate of movement of the respective proximate water molecules.

Light, whether used as a noun or an adjective, is an attribute of each of the three Members of the Godhead. We may call one of more of them Light (as in “I am the light”), and light is an attribute of each, but the three People are not the same things, and they use light both separately and in unison as independent individuals comprising the Godhead.

[mfbukowski]

Here's my usual post at times like this.

"What light through yonder window breaks? Tis Juliette and she is the Sun".

That must have been one big hot mama!

There are these things called "similes" and "metaphors" and "IS" does not always mean =.

[brainburn]

By refusing to answer the cfr you will take a 2 day break from the board. When you come back be prepared to back it up or recant your statement.

Nemesis

I'd like to get this out of the way as soon as possible, but I'm confused. What statement of mine does the CFR refer to?

[harfad]

The scriptures are more than formulae.

The scriptures make a statement. We can either trust the Lord that he means what he says, and is able to say what he means without ambiguity, or go on a wild speculation to make him say just about whatever we want him to say.

You say “No,” then affirm the very same concept. Where chocolate and coffee are each “hot” or each a “liquid,” it is incorrect to conclude that the hot chocolate and hot coffee refer to the same things. They are not the same things, and they are not the same as “hot” and “liquid” either, even if all four things were called by the same name. The “hotness” and the “liquidity” of the chocolate and the coffee are also different since these attributes are identified with two different things. The molecules of each are moving so as to produce their own heat, not one another’s heat. Even if you were to mix the two liquids, the chocolate and coffee molecules affect the rate of movement of the respective proximate water molecules.

Light, whether used as a noun or an adjective, is an attribute of each of the three Members of the Godhead. We may call one of more of them Light (as in “I am the light”), and light is an attribute of each, but the three People are not the same things, and they use light both separately and in unison as independent individuals comprising the Godhead.

I don't think that your analogy is very applicable to what we are looking at here. Let's start again. Take a look at what Joseph Smith says about the Holy Spirit in the Lectures on Faith:

And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father - possessing the same

mind

with the Father;

which Mind is the Holy Spirit,

that bears record of the Father and the Son; and these three are one, ... the Father and the Son possessing the same

mind,

the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness; filling all in all -the Son being filled with the fullness of the

Mind,

glory, and power; or in other words the

Spirit,

glory, and power of the Father - ... - being filled with the fullness of the

Mind

of the Father, or in other words, the

Spirit

of the Father;

. . .

Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same

mind?

A. They

do

. ...

Q. What is this

mind?

A. The

Holy Spirit

. ...

The way I am reading this is that the Holy Spirit is the mind of God. I can't see how it could be read any differently. If you think that is not what it means, what do you think it does mean, and what is your basis for it?

[CV75]

Here's my usual post at times like this.

"What light through yonder window breaks? Tis Juliette and she is the Sun".

That must have been one big hot mama!

There are these things called "similes" and "metaphors" and "IS" does not always mean =.

And broken light (or is it broken window?)!

[CV75]

I don't think that your analogy is very applicable to what we are looking at here.

it is applicable to the tangent you spun out on.

Let's start again.

Good idea, but I will entertain only one more round of going around in circles.

Take a look at what Joseph Smith says about the Holy Spirit in the Lectures on Faith:The way I am reading this is that the Holy Spirit is the mind of God. I can't see how it could be read any differently. If you think that is not what it means, what do you think it does mean, and what is your basis for it?

I described what it means in post # 144: “That the Father and the Son possess the same mind which is the Holy Spirit only means that they communicate to mortals through Him, as He testifies of both. The Holy Spirit quickens people physically and/or spiritually according to how the Father and/or Son are communicating, and thus not only delivers the communication to the hearts and minds of God’s children, but helps them receive it. I’m confident this teaching sounds familiar to you.”

In reference to your formulaic approach:

Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind?

A. They do. ...

Q. What is this mind?

A. The Holy Spirit. ...

I refer you to "Holy Ghost" in "Gospel Topics" on http://www.lds.org/t...-ghost?lang=eng . A pertinent quote from this reference for the above Q&A is this sentence: “The Holy Ghost works in perfect unity with Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, fulfilling several roles to help us live righteously and receive the blessings of the gospel.” I think that sums it up, but the whole link ties it all together more neatly.

Possessing the same Mind refers to Their perfect unity. Their perfect unity is the Holy Spirit because of the Holy Spirit’s “several roles” in sealing/confirming/validating the “at-one-ment” that Christ wrought under the Father’s direction, uniting us all as one in God. As far as we are concerned, the Mind of God is made known to us in increasing measure by the light of Christ, followed by the power, gift and companionship of the Holy Ghost. This Mind is manifest not only in data but in word and deed as we actually become as God is.

Joseph Smith is teaching that the Mind of God is revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. If we are to know the Mind of the Father and the Son, we need to get the Holy Spirit.

Edited December 4, 2012 by CV75

[harfad]

Here's my usual post at times like this.

"What light through yonder window breaks? Tis Juliette and she is the Sun".

That must have been one big hot mama!

There are these things called "similes" and "metaphors" and "IS" does not always mean =.

And broken light (or is it broken window?)!

But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?

It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.

Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,

Who is already sick and pale with grief,

—Romeo and Juliet, Act II scene II

I agree, the sun has risen, and the moon has been ashamed!

It reminds me of a verse in the Qur'an which says:

Ja'al haq wa zahaqal batil (جَاء الحَقُّ وَزَھَقَ البَاطِل)

Meaning: “truth has arrived, and error has fled!”

It is an apt description of our conversation!

[volgadon]

What you call interpretation, I call speculation. I would rather stick to what the scripture actually says, rather than what I would like it to have said, or think it should have said, but somehow didn’t manage to say it.

And what you call speaking scripturally, I call baloney.

[CV75]

Meaning: “truth has arrived, and error has fled!”

Is this why you have no reply to post #163?

[CV75]

[insert Shakespeare soliloquy prologue here]

Here is another example of the Holy Ghost conveying and reflecting the mind of God without being the literal spirit and/or element that comprise the mind of God: D&C 86:4, “And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon [not acted upon] by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.”

So, taking your formula into account:

Q. Do the Father and the Son possess the same mind [scripture]?

A. They do. ...

Q. What is this mind [scripture]?

A. The Holy Spirit [scripture]

D&C 88:68, “Therefore, sanctify yourselves [a process requiring cooperation with the Holy Ghost] that your minds [still our own, and not the Holy Ghost’s / scripture, or the words we say (including thoughts, deeds, etc.) when moved upon by the Holy Ghost] become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will.” And at some point, our spirit and element are inseparably connected, as God’s are.

Edited December 4, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

...and of course, the Holy Ghost is what He speaks since He doesn't have a body of element, just as Christ was alled the Word even before He had a body.

[harfad]

Is this why you have no reply to post #163?

No. That was just a good answer to the Romeo quote.

I described what it means in post # 144: “That the Father and the Son possess the same mind which is the Holy Spirit only means that they communicate to mortals through Him, as He testifies of both. The Holy Spirit quickens people physically and/or spiritually according to how the Father and/or Son are communicating, and thus not only delivers the communication to the hearts and minds of God’s children, but helps them receive it. I’m confident this teaching sounds familiar to you.”

I have several problems with that. Firstly, if God wanted to say what you have claimed he has said, that is a very strange way of saying it.To call the Holy Spirit the "mind" of God, and to repeat it emphatically using as many different phraseologies as human language can invent in a short paragraph (and repeating it in the catechism again in unmistakable terms), seems a very strange way of saying what you are claiming God has said (or Joseph has said). If you wanted to say what you are claiming that passage means, would you have said it that way? I know I wouldn't. I don't think anybody would, including God and Joseph Smith. From my perspective, the only logical way of understanding that is that it means what it says. You are also ignoring the context of the rest Lectures on Faith. The context of Lecture 5 provides the following additional information about the Godhead that Joseph is describing:

There are

two

personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things ... They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of

spirit,

glory and power: possessing all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of

tabernacle,

... possessing all the fulness of the Father, ... and having overcome, received a fulness of the glory of the Father—possessing the same

mind

with the Father,

which mind is the Holy Spirit,

that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these

three

are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things: by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and these three constitute the Godhead, and are one:

This is describing a fundamentally different concept of the Godhead than the one you are trying to fit it into. According to this doctrine, the Godhead consists of two personages, not three. The third member is not a "personage" at all. It is simply their minds. That is what the above passage is saying. If you honestly and truly believe that what you are trying to read into it is logically justifiable, and linguistically reasonable and makes sense, then I give up. There is nothing else that I can say or do. It is like two people looking at the same object, and one of them insists that its color is blue, and the other one insists that its color is pink. There is nothing else to argue about. I suppose in that case their disagreements could be resolved by bringing a spectrometer to measure the wavelength of light it emits, and agreeing to resolve their differences by the spectrometer reading. But in this case I can't see anything equivalent to a spectrometer that can come to our rescue. I look a this thing and say it is red, and you look at it and say it is blue. I suppose we just have to agree to disagree. I can't see any other solution. If you can think of an independent arbitration mechanism like a spectrometer that we can both agree upon, I am willing to submit to that arbitration; but I cannot think of one. Perhaps you can.

[harfad]

And what you call speaking scripturally, I call baloney.

Your contept for the scriptures has always been obvious. You rerely quote from them, and you seen to have an aversion to others using them.

[CV75]

The third member is not a "personage" at all. It is simply their minds.

But this is also waaaaaay outdated and has been replaced with D&C 130:22 to say the least.

[volgadon]

Your contept for the scriptures has always been obvious. You rerely quote from them, and you seen to have an aversion to others using them.

Hilarious. Thank you, I needed a smile.

I don't have contempt for the scriptures, I have contempt for your attempts to bludgeon others with yours ideas equated with scripture.

[harfad]

But this is also waaaaaay outdated and has been replaced with D&C 130:22 to say the least.

Firstly, I don't believe it is outdated, nor replaced by anything. Secondly, if you think that passage is outdated, or teaches an incorrect or invalid doctrine, then why don't you just say so, instead of trying to corkscrew a meaning into it into which does not fit?

[brainburn]

Mfbukowski? I still don't know which statement I am to retract or support.

[CV75]

Firstly, I don't believe it is outdated, nor replaced by anything. Secondly, if you think that passage is outdated, or teaches an incorrect or invalid doctrine, then why don't you just say so, instead of trying to corkscrew a meaning into it into which does not fit?

I assumed you were well versed in modern scripture and Church curriculum, and that you understood the status of teachings about the Godhead in the Lectures on Faith vis a vis later D&C revelation and teachings of today's prophets. The doctrine and instruction on the Godhead has certainly evolved over time. I was wondering why you were stuck on it but didn't mind accommodating you for the sake of discussion, since you are such a sensitive person and bristle so easily.

As long as you wanted to use Lectures on Faith as the basis of discussion, I also found it to be a convenient vehicle for getting my points across. So the meaning I give your quotes do fit for discussion purposes, as revelation about the subject matter has changed. I suppose we could have had the same exchange of ideas without an appeal to the Lecture on Faith, but I figured I would meet you where you wanted to stand.

You must recall that we weren't discussing the Lectures on Faith per se, but what the scriptures say about light and God as "things". If you got off on another tangent and forgot that, then you really have to start over, over again.

Edited December 4, 2012 by CV75