The Nature Of The Holy Spirit

[teddyaware]

On a recent thread in General Discussions, I was very surprised to learn some members of the LDS Church don't believe the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Light of Christ that fills the immensity of space) actually exists as a highly refined spiritual substance with a tangible existence.  Rather than understanding the Holy Spirit (not to be confused with the personage of the Holy Ghost) to be composed of spirit matter, these folks believe the Holy Spirit has no tangible material existence but is instead a state of mind -- the "Christmas spirit" being used by one of them as an example of this belief. And even though the Prophet Joseph Smith taught us that "all spirit is matter," these folks maintain not all spirit (in the scriptural sense of the word) is matter.
 
I always thought it was mainstream LDS thinking to believe in the material existence of the Holy Spirit, or the Light of Christ, as a substantive presence in the physical universe, but now I'm not so sure. Is the Holy Spirit really just a state of mind, with no simultaneous infusion of actual tangible spiritual light into the soul of one under its influence?
 
Throughout the years my belief in the materiality of the Holy Spirit was (I thought) not only supported by the plain meaning of the scriptures but also by many of the writings of LDS authorities and scholars. Here's an of example such doctrinal support from Parley P. Pratt:

"There are several of these subtle, invisible substances but little understood as yet by man, and their existence is only demonstrated by their effects. Some of them are recognized under the several terms, electricity, galvanism, magnetism, animal magnetism, spiritual magnetism, essence, spirit, &c.

The purest, most refined and subtle of all these substances, and the one least understood, or even recognized, by the less informed among mankind, is that substance called the Holy Spirit.

This substance, like all others, is one of the elements of material or physical existence, and therefore subject to the necessary laws which govern all matter, as before enumerated.

Like the other elements, its whole is composed of individual particles. Like them, each particle occupies space, possesses the power of motion, requires time to move from one part of space to another, and can in no wise occupy two spaces at once. In all these respects it differs nothing from all other matter...

 

His Holy Spirit centres (sic) in His presence, and communicates with, and extends to the utmost verge of His dominions, comprehending and controlling all things under the immediate direction of His own will, and the will of all those in communication with Him, in worlds without end!
(Essential Parley P. Pratt – 18)

 

(After this description of the Holy Spirit by Elder Pratt, I'm wondering if there is any support in the scriptures, and writings of LDS luminaries, for the belief that the  Holy Spirit is a state of state mind and not something materially substantive? I would greatly appreciate it if something could be found in support of the immaterial Holy Spirit point of view).

 

So which side do you fall on? Do you believe the Holy Spirit is merely a state of mind people can share, like the Christmas spirit? Or do you believe the Holy Spirit is a powerful, highly refined substance with a tangible material existence?

Edited January 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[WmLaw]

On a recent thread in General Discussions, I was very surprised to learn some members of the LDS Church don't believe the Holy Spirit (i.e. the Light of Christ that fills the immensity of space) actually exists as a highly refined spiritual substance with a tangible existence.  Rather than understanding the Holy Spirit (not to be confused with the personage of the Holy Ghost) to be composed of spirit matter, these folks believe the Holy Spirit has no tangible material existence but is instead a state of mind -- the "Christmas spirit" being used by one of them as an example of this belief. And even though the Prophet Joseph Smith taught us that "all spirit is matter," these folks maintain not all spirit (in the scriptural sense of the word) is matter.

 

I always thought it was mainstream LDS thinking to believe in the material existence of the Holy Spirit, or the Light of Christ, as a substantive presence in the physical universe, but now I'm not so sure. Is the Holy Spirit really just a state of mind, with no simultaneous infusion of actual tangible spiritual light into the soul of one under its influence?

 

Throughout the years my belief in the materiality of the Holy Spirit was (I thought) not only supported by the plain meaning of the scriptures but also by many of the writings of LDS authorities and scholars. Here's an of example such doctrinal support from Parley P. Pratt:

"There are several of these subtle, invisible substances but little understood as yet by man, and their existence is only demonstrated by their effects. Some of them are recognized under the several terms, electricity, galvanism, magnetism, animal magnetism, spiritual magnetism, essence, spirit, &c.

The purest, most refined and subtle of all these substances, and the one least understood, or even recognized, by the less informed among mankind, is that substance called the Holy Spirit.

This substance, like all others, is one of the elements of material or physical existence, and therefore subject to the necessary laws which govern all matter, as before enumerated.

Like the other elements, its whole is composed of individual particles. Like them, each particle occupies space, possesses the power of motion, requires time to move from one part of space to another, and can in no wise occupy two spaces at once. In all these respects it differs nothing from all other matter...

 

His Holy Spirit centres (sic) in His presence, and communicates with, and extends to the utmost verge of His dominions, comprehending and controlling all things under the immediate direction of His own will, and the will of all those in communication with Him, in worlds without end!

(Essential Parley P. Pratt – 18)

 

(After this description of the Holy Spirit by Elder Pratt, I'm wondering if there is any support in the scriptures, and writings of LDS luminaries, for the belief that the  Holy Spirit is a state of state mind and not something materially substantive? I would greatly appreciate it if something could be found in support of the immaterial Holy Spirit point of view).

 

So which side do you fall on? Do you believe the Holy Spirit is merely a state of mind people can share, like the Christmas spirit? Or do you believe the Holy Spirit is a powerful, highly refined substance with a tangible material existence?

I've always taken the terms 'Holy Spirit' and 'Holy Ghost' to be synonymous.  Are you saying that references to the Holy Spirit are actually references to the Light of Christ?

[Alan]

The terms "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost" are the same and refer to the same being. Spirit is from the French root meaning Ghost, while Ghost is from the Germanic root meaning Spirit. The two are interchangeable and are used in this way in many church publications.

 

The Light of Christ is exactly that. It isn't a being but is the light which eminates from Christ illuminating the soul of every man. It is sometimes referred to as our conscience, although I suspect that is a little simplistic.

[CV75]

So which side do you fall on?

While some of these terms are used interchangeably (Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Lord), the bottom line for me that that there is no immaterial matter, even if we call it light, which is a term that has several applications (D&C 88):

Jesus is called “the light of truth” (v. 5, 6) and that which shines from the truth is called the “light of Christ” (v. 7). Jesus as “the light of truth,” to me, means He gives truth its trueness. He is also likewise in the sun, moon, stars and earth; He is their light; and is the power by which they were made (v. 7-10).

The “light which shineth” (which is the light which shineth from truth, which truth is defined by Jesus—D&C 93:30) also comes through Jesus to give us light, enlighten our eyes and quicken our understanding (v. 11). This is the light that “proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space— The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.”

So I can see why it is difficult to think of this light as material, since it is also described as the basis of such “immaterial” things as life, law, power, and intelligence. But since God manages these things just factually as we can manage material, let’s call it material!

It is interesting to me that the “light which shineth” only shines for us when Jesus places truth in its sphere of action, and that this is referred to as being “through him.”

[Nofear]

So which side do you fall on? Do you believe the Holy Spirit is merely a state of mind people can share, like the Christmas spirit? Or do you believe the Holy Spirit is a powerful, highly refined substance with a tangible material existence?

 

Like Pratt, I'm a materialist/physicalist. Where I might differ is that there does not seem to be a way that spirit matter can interact with physical matter via the Standard Model of Particle Physics (with potentially the exception of gravity, but that's an exception in of itself). If it did we should have noted the anomalous behaviors coming from such interactions by now.

[teddyaware]

I've always taken the terms 'Holy Spirit' and 'Holy Ghost' to be synonymous.  Are you saying that references to the Holy Spirit are actually references to the Light of Christ?

In the LDS Church, the term Holy Spirit is often used interchangeably with the term Holy Ghost. But there are also times when the term Holy Spirit is also used interchangeably with the Light of Christ. Here are some examples:

"The chief agent employed by God to communicate his will to the universe is the Holy Spirit, which must not be confused with the Holy Ghost, the personage who is the third member of the Godhead." (John A. Widtsoe)

And again...

"So thoroughly permeated with the Holy Spirit is the immensity of space that every act and word and thought is recorded and transmitted everywhere..." (John A. Widtsoe)

And again...

"The Light of Christ refers to the spiritual power that emanates from God to fill the immensity of space and enlightens every man, woman, and child. Other terms sometimes used to denote this same phenomenon are Holy Spirit, "Spirit of the Lord," and "Spirit of Truth," but it is different from the Holy Ghost." (Encyclopedia of Mormonism)

And again...

"The Holy Ghost does not strive or entice; his mission is to teach and testify. But those who heed the enticements and submit to the strivings of the Holy Spirit (which is the light of Christ) are enabled to receive the Holy Spirit (which is the Holy Ghost)." (New Witness for the Articles of Faith)

But for the sake of clarity, from now on let's just pretend the title of this thread is "The Nature of the Light of Christ." I don't want my original point to get lost in a debate about terminology.

 

[teddyaware]

The terms "Holy Spirit" and "Holy Ghost" are the same and refer to the same being. Spirit is from the French root meaning Ghost, while Ghost is from the Germanic root meaning Spirit. The two are interchangeable and are used in this way in many church publications.

 

The Light of Christ is exactly that. It isn't a being but is the light which eminates from Christ illuminating the soul of every man. It is sometimes referred to as our conscience, although I suspect that is a little simplistic.

Please read my response to WmLaw, post #6

[teddyaware]

While some of these terms are used interchangeably (Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Lord), the bottom line for me that that there is no immaterial matter, even if we call it light, which is a term that has several applications (D&C 88):

Jesus is called “the light of truth” (v. 5, 6) and that which shines from the truth is called the “light of Christ” (v. 7). Jesus as “the light of truth,” to me, means He gives truth its trueness. He is also likewise in the sun, moon, stars and earth; He is their light; and is the power by which they were made (v. 7-10).

The “light which shineth” (which is the light which shineth from truth, which truth is defined by Jesus—D&C 93:30) also comes through Jesus to give us light, enlighten our eyes and quicken our understanding (v. 11). This is the light that “proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space— The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.”

So I can see why it is difficult to think of this light as material, since it is also described as the basis of such “immaterial” things as life, law, power, and intelligence. But since God manages these things just factually as we can manage material, let’s call it material!

It is interesting to me that the “light which shineth” only shines for us when Jesus places truth in its sphere of action, and that this is referred to as being “through him.”

 

To me, the simple fact of the matter is that light is a very real physical phenomenon. And because it exists and be can easily discerned (even though we don't understand why at times light seems to behave like it's made of particles, and there are other times when it behaves more like waves) to me it's as real as any other form of matter in the physical universe, therefore it is substantive. Perhaps physical light is a very real manifestation of the Light of Christ in a lower state of refinement, bridging the gap between spiritual matter and physical matter.

 

Edited January 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

To me, the simple fact of the matter is that light is a very real physical phenomenon. And because it exists and be can easily discerned (even though we don't understand why at times light seems to behave like it's made of particles, and there are other times when it behaves more like waves) to me it's as real as any other form of matter in the physical universe, therefore it is substantive. Perhaps physical light is a very real manifestation of the Light of Christ in a lower state of refinement, bridging the gap between spiritual matter and physical matter.

I think D&C 88 says as much.

 

Which do you think is in the greater state of material refinement:

 - "the light which shineth";

 - the life, law, power, and intelligence it quickens or gives rise to;

 - the truth from which it shineth forth;

 - the resurrected Jesus, who is "the light of truth"

 

Do you think the degree of material refinement has anything to do with how it can act, or act upon or act with something else?

 

[teddyaware]

I think D&C 88 says as much.

 

Which do you think is in the greater state of material refinement:

 - "the light which shineth";

 - the life, law, power, and intelligence it quickens or gives rise to;

 - the truth from which it shineth forth;

 - the resurrected Jesus, who is "the light of truth"

 

Do you think the degree of material refinement has anything to do with how it can act, or act upon or act with something else?

The stages of refinement of spiritual matter are possibly roughly analogous to the refinement of Gold. Purge the gold ore of all its impurities, through the application of intense, refining high heat, and sooner or later you'll end up with pure gold, most brilliant and unalloyed. Perhaps this is why the degrees of glory are likened unto the lights in the heavens? The more brilliant and pure the light, the more powerful, concentrated, illuminating and life sustaining it becomes. In it's purest form, spiritual matter is surely the infinite and eternal power of God Himself, the smallest particle of which containing power and energy beyond the scope of human imagination,

And of course, the resurrected Jesus is the greatest manifestation of that light in all its infinite and eternal power, life force, intelligence, wisdom, faith, hope and perfect love. This is why we worship Him, for within Him resides all the eternal power of the Godhead and the omnipresent Light of Christ bodily.

 

[mfbukowski]

When you turn on a light switch, is the light bulb the light shining on the desk?  Of course not.

 

Talking about metaphysics will confuse anyone anytime.  Keep it simple.  Don't let terminology get in the way.

Edited January 31, 2014 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

The stages of refinement of spiritual matter are possibly roughly analogous to the refinement of Gold. Purge the gold ore of all its impurities, through the application of intense, refining high heat, and sooner or later you'll end up with pure gold, most brilliant and unalloyed. Perhaps this is why the degrees of glory are likened unto the lights in the heavens? The more brilliant and pure the light, the more powerful, concentrated, illuminating and life sustaining it becomes. In it's purest form, spiritual matter is surely the infinite and eternal power of God Himself, the smallest particle of which containing power and energy beyond the scope of human imagination,

And of course, the resurrected Jesus is the greatest manifestation of that light in all its infinite and eternal power, life force, intelligence, wisdom, faith, hope and perfect love. This is why we worship Him, for within Him resides all the eternal power of the Godhead and the omnipresent Light of Christ bodily.

It is interesting to me, where all things are matter, that God is the source of something that is materially more refined than He is (or is it?)!

In some ways, the more organized the “inseparably connected” spirit and element are, the more powerful and exalted (refined) their glory, despite the complexity (less “refined” nature) of their arrangement with each other!

If spiritual matter is surely the infinite and eternal power of God Himself, then is it what God is made of in both spirit and element, as the light that permeates from Him?

The resurrected Lord is both spirit and element—which parts of the compound is more refined; or are they equally refined; or is the inseparably connect spirit and body a new form of matter altogether?

[CV75]

When you turn on a light switch, is the light bulb the light shining on the desk?  Of course not.

I think D&C 88 makes that clear as well. Jesus is clearly the source of the light. But when we say spiritual light is more refined matter, and Jesus is the source of that refined matter, and refinement is an indicator or spiritual purity and power, which is more materially refined: Jesus or the light?

Also, Jesus is also described as being in the light.

[teddyaware]

When you turn on a light switch, is the light bulb the light shining on the desk?  Of course not.

 

Talking about metaphysics will confuse anyone anytime.  Keep it simple.  Don't let terminology get in the way.

It's a marvel to me, but most every time I read something on this board that doesn't ring true, without any effort on my part a scripture pops into my mind -- perhaps brought to my remembrance by the Spirit -- that perfectly answers and clarifies the very thing that doesn't sit right within my mind. After reading what you said above, the following scripture was instantly presented to my mind and heart...

9 He is the light and the life of the world; yea, a light that is endless, that can never be darkened; yea, and also a life which is endless, that there can be no more death. (Mosiah 16:9)

 

When speaking of the endless, inexpressibly brilliant and unextinguishable light of God, comparing Him to a corruptible, temporarily fuctionable light bulb hooked up to a switch falls woefully short as an analogy. 

 

Yo

Edited January 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

So spirit is matter, and the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit, and there is no immaterial matter. I think it is also commonly held that that intelligence, or the light of truth (which is the knowledge of all things), are also comprised of matter.

But I’m also thinking that just because there is no immaterial matter (whether we call it different things to differentiate a level of refinement – knowledge, truth, light, intelligence, glory, spirit, element, etc.), it does not follow that notions that are not comprised of matter do not exist—or are such abstracts just other refined forms of matter? I’m thinking of things such as faith, hope, and charity (not the neurochemical kind); divine mercy, justice, sovereignty, sociality, reason, etc.; and the various divine states of being. For example, is whatever it is that makes God weep or laugh material or immaterial?

And if material things can give rise to immaterial things, can the converse occur? For example, could immaterial agency possibly represent that which enables the materials we call truth and intelligence to act?

[CV75]

When speaking of the endless, inexpressibly brilliant and unextinguishable light of God, comparing Him to a corruptible, temporarily fuctionable light bulb hooked up to a switch falls woefully short as an analogy.

But it is consistent with a material God.

[teddyaware]

But it is consistent with a material God.

But it is barely consistent because the highly refined spiritual mater we are speaking makes earthly manifestations of light infinitely pale by comparison. It's like comparing a fallen mortal body on this temporal earth to a glorified resurrected body in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. One dies and rots to dust, the other lives forever in a fullness of glory and joy. So it is when comparing a switched off earthly light bulb to the inextinguishable light of the everlasting God -- one outshines the ephemeral other by an infinitude.

Edited January 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

So spirit is matter, and the Holy Spirit is a personage of spirit, and there is no immaterial matter. I think it is also commonly held that that intelligence, or the light of truth (which is the knowledge of all things), are also comprised of matter.

But I’m also thinking that just because there is no immaterial matter (whether we call it different things to differentiate a level of refinement – knowledge, truth, light, intelligence, glory, spirit, element, etc.), it does not follow that notions that are not comprised of matter do not exist—or are such abstracts just other refined forms of matter? I’m thinking of things such as faith, hope, and charity (not the neurochemical kind); divine mercy, justice, sovereignty, sociality, reason, etc.; and the various divine states of being. For example, is whatever it is that makes God weep or laugh material or immaterial?

And if material things can give rise to immaterial things, can the converse occur? For example, could immaterial agency possibly represent that which enables the materials we call truth and intelligence to act?

Yes, but we are told none of those things could exist or even be imagined without the Spirit. Virtually everything you point to above is a gift of the Spirit, bequeathed to fallen man by virtue of the atonement of Christ. "and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, and there could no good thing come unto them." (Moroni 7) Without the Spirit, good and positive thoughts and virtues wouldn't exist. Every good thing is a manifestation of the power of God.

As for your interesting last question, agency can be said to be and immaterial concept, but agency could not exist without gross matter and spiritual matter. All good things are manifestations of the Spirit, as experienced in the real universe.

Edited January 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

But it is barely consistent because the highly refined spiritual mater we are speaking makes earthly manifestations of light infinitely pale by comparison. It's like comparing a fallen mortal body on this temporal earth to a glorified resurrected body in the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom. One dies and rots to dust, the other lives forever in a fullness of glory and joy. So it is when comparing a switched off earthly light bulb to the inextinguishable light of the everlasting God -- one outshines the ephemeral other by an infinitude.

But it's all material, whether more refined and glorious or not -- I thought that was your point about the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost being a personage of spirit and so forth.

At any rate, God is over all things material and all things immaterial as well (if such things exist).

Do you think the spirit of Christmas is material or immaterial?

[teddyaware]

But it's all material, whether more refined and glorious or not -- I thought that was your point about the light of Christ and the Holy Ghost being a personage of spirit and so forth.

At any rate, God is over all things material and all things immaterial as well (if such things exist).

Do you think the spirit of Christmas is material or immaterial?

The spirit of Christmas is felt, acted upon and experienced in the universe of matter, both gross and spiritual. Without the human body, brain, central nervous system and the animating spirit from heaven that makes a home in the body, the Christmas spirit (which in the end is most surely a manifestation of the light of Christ) could never be experienced by anyone.

I'm sure the folks I debated with the other day know full well the Christmas spirit could not be experienced without a human body and the spirit that animates that body, but for some reason they thought it strange to imagine that refined spiritual matter could be participating in and amplifying the joys of the Christmas spirit. Yes, they knew there was a spirit within their bodies that enabled them to feel and enjoy the Christmas spirit, but they thought it strange that the light of Christ, as an actual spiritual substance existing beyond the human spirit, might also help to enhance the merriment of the Christmas season as it acts without compulsion as a joyous and spiritually energizing force upon the human constitution.

Edited January 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

One thing that is noteworthy is for those who believes that "God is Spirit", The Holy Ghost (Spirit) and Jesus Christ a body of "flesh and bone"...it would look like this:

Using the doctrine of the Trinity...

Father...Spirit

Son..."Flesh and bone"

Holy Ghost...Spirit.

So, 2/3 Spirit and one part "fleas hand bone".

So why the redundantly of Spirit?

[mfbukowski]

It's a marvel to me, but most every time I read something on this board that doesn't ring true, without any effort on my part a scripture pops into my mind -- perhaps brought to my remembrance by the Spirit -- that perfectly answers and clarifies the very thing that doesn't sit right within my mind. After reading what you said above, the following scripture was instantly presented to my mind and heart...

9 He is the light and the life of the world; yea, a light that is endless, that can never be darkened; yea, and also a life which is endless, that there can be no more death. (Mosiah 16:9)

 

When speaking of the endless, inexpressibly brilliant and unextinguishable light of God, comparing Him to a corruptible, temporarily fuctionable light bulb hooked up to a switch falls woefully short as an analogy. 

 

Yo

I will let that reply stand on its own merit.

[Ahab]

Intelligent thoughts are immaterial, but the intelligences or intelligent persons who have intelligent thoughts are composed of matter/materials and there can be no intelligent thoughts by any immaterial being.

It helps to understand what intelligence is, and what light is, and there is more than one correct definition for each word. The light of Christ refers to the intelligence of Christ, for example, and light refers to something which helps us to see something whether what we can see is material or immaterial.

[theplains]

Lectures on Faith (#5) says there are only 2 personages in the Godhead.

 

Regards,

Jim

[mfbukowski]

But it is consistent with a material God.

It is.

 

All language is analogy and anyone who doesn't know that is at risk of confusion, as we see often hereabouts.  All words fall short of any description.  Describe the sound of a trumpet to a deaf person - it can't be done.  You can make it flowery or simple, it still doesn't work.

 

Metaphysical analogies are less useful than simple ones because they often allow one to get lost in the language and forget the simplicity of the pure experience- here for example, the sound of a trumpet.  One might argue all day about whether or not the color "red" is a better analogy for the sound of a trumpet or the color "yellow".  Perhaps the sound of a trumpet is more like a rainbow- what do you think? 

 

Or perhaps we could argue about what virtue sounds like.  Is dissonance evil?  Perhaps I should start a thread on that one.    I am sure we could get some really sublime but meaningless statements going.

 

Is virtue harmonious and more like Bach, or Beethoven?  And if so where does that leave Mozart? That would be a good 15 pager at least.

 

Those who are prideful always like to sound as if they know what they are talking about when they use metaphysical terms, and throw in a scripture or two as a put-down,  but ultimately it doesn't matter if you use flowery language, scriptural language, or simple language.  It still falls short.

Edited January 31, 2014 by mfbukowski