The Nature Of The Holy Spirit

[CV75]

Because according to the 5th Lecture on Faith, the workings of God's Mind are one and the same with the workings of His Spiit, and all spirit is material.

That answer doesn't address the question. The only mention of law in "5" is only in reference to obeying it or not; there is no description of it being composed of spirit matter:

"But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, 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."

[teddyaware]

How is faith (a principle of action and power) not the quickened ("aroused"--Alma 32:27) state of the spirit that has been exposed to a principle of truth (rather than the spirit itself)?

Because there is no power in a so-called immaterial principle; power can only exist as a manifestation of the Spirit.

47 Behold, I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, and your Redeemer, by the power of my Spirit have spoken it. Amen. (D&C 18)

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal— (D&C 29)

Edited February 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

That answer doesn't address the question. The only mention of law in "5" is only in reference to obeying it or not; there is no description of it being composed of spirit matter:

"But notwithstanding all this, he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin. And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, 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."

One cannot keep the law or be condemned by the law except as the law is presented and perceived within the mind.

Edited February 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Words.  Nada mas.

[teddyaware]

Words.  Nada mas.

I don't blame you. My mind is weary with all this philosophical stuff. I don't at all envy a philosophy professor, no matter how well paid he or she might be.

[CV75]

Because there is no power in a so-called immaterial principle; power can only exist as a manifestation of the Spirit.

47 Behold, I, Jesus Christ, your Lord and your God, and your Redeemer, by the power of my Spirit have spoken it. Amen. (D&C 18)

31 For by the power of my Spirit created I them; yea, all things both spiritual and temporal— (D&C 29)

We’ve established that His spirit is matter, and these scriptures say that Jesus’ spirit has power and so His spirit must use faith, a principle of that power. I agree with that. But how does this show that faith (or even some aspects of power such as strength and authority) is composed of matter?

 

 

One cannot keep the law or be condemned by the law except as the law is presented and perceived within the mind.

I’m in full agreement—but where or how does Lectures on Faith say that the law is a thing composed of matter, like a spirit or a soul is? I can see how it can be presented and perceived in material forms, and I can see how only a mind can present or perceive it, but those are just material manifestations of the law that may not be material. I think of a waving hand--whether it is moving of not, it is still a hand, but the motion is neither the hand nor composed of separate matter.

[mfbukowski]

I don't blame you. My mind is weary with all this philosophical stuff. I don't at all envy a philosophy professor, no matter how well paid he or she might be.

Unfortunately it's not philosophy.

 

This is to philosophy what alchemy is to chemistry.  Really more like phlogiston.

[teddyaware]

We’ve established that His spirit is matter, and these scriptures say that Jesus’ spirit has power and so His spirit must use faith, a principle of that power. I agree with that. But how does this show that faith (or even some aspects of power such as strength and authority) is composed of matter?

 

 

I’m in full agreement—but where or how does Lectures on Faith say that the law is a thing composed of matter, like a spirit or a soul is? I can see how it can be presented and perceived in material forms, and I can see how only a mind can present or perceive it, but those are just material manifestations of the law that may not be material. I think of a waving hand--whether it is moving of not, it is still a hand, but the motion is neither the hand nor composed of separate matter.

1. Faith is a one of the component attributes of the Spirit of God, an attribute of power; therefore it is spiritual in nature, and all spirit is matter.

61 Therefore it is given to abide in you (i.e. to live within you); the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment (immaterial things cannot know or have power).

 

Jesus Christ and his holy Mind (Spirit) are made of matter, and within the Mind of Christ the law lives as an actual living presence of spirit or light.

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me (as the living law), and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. (3 Nephi 15)

Edited February 10, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

1. Faith is a one of the component attributes of the Spirit of God, an attribute of power; therefore it is spiritual in nature, and all spirit is matter.

61 Therefore it is given to abide in you (i.e. to live within you); the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment (immaterial things cannot know or have power).

 

Jesus Christ and his holy Mind (Spirit) are made of matter, and within the Mind of Christ the law lives as an actual living presence of spirit or light.

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me (as the living law), and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. (3 Nephi 15)

The Comforter is the Holy Ghost. As a personage of spirit (matter) and the third member of the Godhead, He relates to us in various ways. He knows all things and has all power “according to [consistent with] wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment.” There is no indication that wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment are matter, either of element or of spirit. They are properties and expressions of godliness based in eternal law (which likewise has not been defined as matter, either of element or of spirit), not the goddesses Athena, Clementia, Veritas, Dike, etc. themselves.

 

Jesus is the Law, as in He is the lawgiver (D&C 38:22; 64:13), much like the police are the law (as in the law enforcers). D&C 132 is a good example of Jesus as a lawgiver. In another sense, such as the Law of Moses, Jesus gave the law and fulfilled it (3 Nephi 15:5-9).

[mfbukowski]

This is to philosophy what alchemy is to chemistry.  Really more like phlogiston.

Actually I kid you not.  Read this:

Phlogisticated substances are substances that contain phlogiston and dephlogisticate when burned.

In general, substances that burned in air were said to be rich in phlogiston; the fact that combustion soon ceased in an enclosed space was taken as clear-cut evidence that air had the capacity to absorb only a finite amount of phlogiston. When air had become completely phlogisticated it would no longer serve to support combustion of any material, nor would a metal heated in it yield a calx; nor could phlogisticated air support life. Breathing was thought to take phlogiston out of the body.

Sound familiar??

 

Look, I believe that spirit is matter and I understand what you mean when you equate "light" with "intelligence" but you have to realize that you are speaking figuratively here guys.

 

All this quasi-scientific stuff just does not make sense.  You can argue it til the cows come home and never resolve it!

 

There's a guy named Rupert Sheldrake who has some interesting theories about how when you look at someone and they sense you looking at them, it is because "something" is actually going out from you, and in a a sense touching them, or some kind of field we all generate.  That meshes with all this talk, but as yet it's not science precisely because science refuses to look at it.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/05/rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-delusion

 

There is clearly something to this all, but trying to tie it down at this point to specifics is just folly.  I prefer just to say "there is something to this but how it all works is unknown".

 

It's not clear why you guys want to argue about something that cannot be resolved.  I don't get it at all.

[CV75]

Actually I kid you not.  Read this:

Sound familiar??

 

Look, I believe that spirit is matter and I understand what you mean when you equate "light" with "intelligence" but you have to realize that you are speaking figuratively here guys.

 

All this quasi-scientific stuff just does not make sense.  You can argue it til the cows come home and never resolve it!

 

There's a guy named Rupert Sheldrake who has some interesting theories about how when you look at someone and they sense you looking at them, it is because "something" is actually going out from you, and in a a sense touching them, or some kind of field we all generate.  That meshes with all this talk, but as yet it's not science precisely because science refuses to look at it.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/05/rupert-sheldrake-interview-science-delusion

 

There is clearly something to this all, but trying to tie it down at this point to specifics is just folly.  I prefer just to say "there is something to this but how it all works is unknown".

 

It's not clear why you guys want to argue about something that cannot be resolved.  I don't get it at all.

I'm not arguing, just trying to flesh out what is being presented to me so that I can understand -- look at the last paragraphs of the link in a post from 6 days ago! "Perhaps, as President Smith and Elder McConkie have counseled us, we, as a people, could make better use of our time in studying subjects about which we have had more revealed. Still, as we bring this essay to a close, let us hazard a few additional speculative thoughts."

 

And then a few "speculative thoughts" are covered:

 

• Perhaps God has told us that there is something about us which is eternal, while at the same time placing us upon an earth where we all experience death, to remind us how precious existence really is.
• It is also possible that we have been told through the scriptures that we are eternal to keep us cognizant of how much we need each other.
• Perhaps we are also taught that we are not totally the creation of God, so we cannot blame Him for what we are or what we become.
• It is also possible that he has revealed so much more about our spiritual existence so as to teach us how much we really do owe Him.
• It is possible, further, that because we are individuals, at least as far back as we know, this is one of the reasons Jesus talked so much about unity and love.
• Finally, it is nice to know that we are something and not nothing; that we have existed, we do exist, and we will continue to exist, because intelligence, whatever it might be, was not created, neither indeed can be.

 

Look at how often the posters in this thread have seriously misunderstood each other, and would still misunderstand each other, if we hadn't persisted. For me, this is an exercise in trying to draw out another perspective. I could have expounded much more on my own scriptural references and imposed my own ideas on everyone, but as I pointed out earlier, I didn't get the questions I thought I might!

[mfbukowski]

I'm not arguing, just trying to flesh out what is being presented to me so that I can understand -- look at the last paragraphs of the link in a post from 6 days ago! "Perhaps, as President Smith and Elder McConkie have counseled us, we, as a people, could make better use of our time in studying subjects about which we have had more revealed. Still, as we bring this essay to a close, let us hazard a few additional speculative thoughts."

 

And then a few "speculative thoughts" are covered:

 

• Perhaps God has told us that there is something about us which is eternal, while at the same time placing us upon an earth where we all experience death, to remind us how precious existence really is.
• It is also possible that we have been told through the scriptures that we are eternal to keep us cognizant of how much we need each other.
• Perhaps we are also taught that we are not totally the creation of God, so we cannot blame Him for what we are or what we become.
• It is also possible that he has revealed so much more about our spiritual existence so as to teach us how much we really do owe Him.
• It is possible, further, that because we are individuals, at least as far back as we know, this is one of the reasons Jesus talked so much about unity and love.
• Finally, it is nice to know that we are something and not nothing; that we have existed, we do exist, and we will continue to exist, because intelligence, whatever it might be, was not created, neither indeed can be.

 

Look at how often the posters in this thread have seriously misunderstood each other, and would still misunderstand each other, if we hadn't persisted. For me, this is an exercise in trying to draw out another perspective. I could have expounded much more on my own scriptural references and imposed my own ideas on everyone, but as I pointed out earlier, I didn't get the questions I thought I might!

My objection is simply when one makes statements as if they are sure knowledge of "things as they are" as opposed to one possible way of seeing them, and then arguing with someone else who is sure he has the sole "correct" view.  In my opinion, I think no one has the "correct" view- they very belief that they do, at least for me, is evidence that they don't.

 

This is a complex complex world and facile answers just don't work for me.  I don't mean to be pedantic, perhaps I am, but for me these issues go to the root of what is knowable and what is not, and so I think the issue is very important.

 

But certainly if you recognize that your approach is one way of seeing the issues among others which might work for others, I would agree.

[CV75]

My objection is simply when one makes statements as if they are sure knowledge of "things as they are" as opposed to one possible way of seeing them, and then arguing with someone else who is sure he has the sole "correct" view.  In my opinion, I think no one has the "correct" view- they very belief that they do, at least for me, is evidence that they don't.

 

This is a complex complex world and facile answers just don't work for me.  I don't mean to be pedantic, perhaps I am, but for me these issues go to the root of what is knowable and what is not, and so I think the issue is very important.

 

But certainly if you recognize that your approach is one way of seeing the issues among others which might work for others, I would agree.

I think I've been consistent in presenting my perspectives as one way of seeing things. Check out the first page alone--I relate to two opposing views in my very first post, #4. On page 1, look at how often I prefaced my comments with "I think..." Note how I agreed with both you and teddy on particular points. On the first page alone, I asked at least 10 questions in trying to understand and consider alternatives. I think the same tone holds through page 13.

[teddyaware]

I think I've been consistent in presenting my perspectives as one way of seeing things. Check out the first page alone--I relate to two opposing views in my very first post, #4. On page 1, look at how often I prefaced my comments with "I think..." Note how I agreed with both you and teddy on particular points. On the first page alone, I asked at least 10 questions in trying to understand and consider alternatives. I think the same tone holds through page 13.

Hi CV75,

 

(Excuse me for leaving aside our discussion format)

I believe I may understand where our differences arise: For a moment, think of one of the Ten Commandments (it doesn't matter which one) and after you select the particular commandment you will focus upon, use your imagination to visualize the words of that commandment as individual written words and then try to "hear" the words of the same commandment in spoken form.

 

Some questions:

1. As you thought of the list of Ten Commandments in order to be able to select one for this mental exercise, where did your memory of the Ten Commandments come from? Did the memory of the commandments come from some immaterial "place" outside of your mind or did it come from your memory which is a function of the living mind?

 

2. Thinking of the mind as an ultra-sophisticated super-computer, do you believe the memory of the commandment you selected was stored as a data entry within the living tissue and wiring of your mind or do you believe the human memory draws upon an immaterial data base of sorts? 

 

2. As you used your mind's capacity for critical thinking in order to select one of the Ten Commandments, do you believe real-life brain activity took place (see below*) or do you believe the process of selection was an immaterial one divorced from material interactions?

                                                     "*SO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU THINK?

Brain cells communicate with each other through an electrochemical process. Every time you think, learn or communicate, a neuron (brain cell) in your brain sends a nerve impulse down its axon. The axon of one brain cell makes multiple thousands of connections with many thousand other brain cells. The point where one brain cell connects to another is called a synapse.

When the nerve impulse (electro-magnetic bio-chemical message) surges down the axon, it is fired across the synaptic gap via a chemical messenger called a neurotransmitter into the dendrite of the receiving brain cell. The nerve impulse then travels along the axon of this brain cell, across the synaptic gap to another brain cell and so on. When a neuron activates (“fires”) another in this way, it’s like a switch being turned on. Neurons fire like a line of falling dominoes. This activity is the process that creates the intricate pathway of thought, also called memory traces or neural pathways.

Neurons can either “excite” other neurons to make them function. Or they can “inhibit” other neurons so they don’t become active. Therefore, there are different types of neurotransmitters that either excite or inhibit other neurons. Neurotransmitters are found in the food we eat.

That is why it is important to eat the right types of brain foods in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of your mental process."

 

In the above exercise, the law is stored as real, active and responsive data within the living matter of the mind. So at least insofar as this example is concerned, the law really does exist within the living material mind.

Edited February 11, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

In the above exercise, the law is stored as real, active and responsive data within the living matter of the mind. So at least insofar as this example is concerned, the law really does exist within the living material mind.

1. The memory came from my mind.

2. The memory was stored in my living brain. Note that on occasions other than this exercise, sometimes the Holy Spirit prompts me to remember commandments. I also expect to remember the commandments as a spirit after I die and no longer have a living brain.

3. I believe in real-life brain activity as explained in the article you provided. I also think that “what happens when I think” differs according to the processes involved when I am thinking with my mortal brain, or my mortal brain integrated with my spirit, or with my spirit, or any of the above in conjunction with the Holy Ghost or Deity, or with my inseparably connected spirit and element.

Yes, in your example, I believe the law is stored in the material mind according to the means described in your quote.

I also believe in an immaterial aspect of the law that is just as real and which the experiment doesn’t address.

[teddyaware]

1. The memory came from my mind.

2. The memory was stored in my living brain. Note that on occasions other than this exercise, sometimes the Holy Spirit prompts me to remember commandments. I also expect to remember the commandments as a spirit after I die and no longer have a living brain.

3. I believe in real-life brain activity as explained in the article you provided. I also think that “what happens when I think” differs according to the processes involved when I am thinking with my mortal brain, or my mortal brain integrated with my spirit, or with my spirit, or any of the above in conjunction with the Holy Ghost or Deity, or with my inseparably connected spirit and element.

Yes, in your example, I believe the law is stored in the material mind according to the means described in your quote.

I also believe in an immaterial aspect of the law that is just as real and which the experiment doesn’t address.

This is good enough for me: You have agreed with my point of view while still holding on to your own parallel point. So let's just call it a day so we don't risk driving poor mfbukowski crazy. All the best to you CV!

[CV75]

This is good enough for me: You have agreed with my point of view while still holding on to your own parallel point. So let's just call it a day so we don't risk driving poor mfbukowski crazy. All the best to you CV!

You're taking all the fun out of it!

[mfbukowski]

I think I've been consistent in presenting my perspectives as one way of seeing things. Check out the first page alone--I relate to two opposing views in my very first post, #4. On page 1, look at how often I prefaced my comments with "I think..." Note how I agreed with both you and teddy on particular points. On the first page alone, I asked at least 10 questions in trying to understand and consider alternatives. I think the same tone holds through page 13.

Ok then no problem.  It's a big deal to me because I am constantly correcting myself so that what I say, I hope, can be read by others so they understand exactly what I mean so that metaphysics is metaphysics logic is logic and psychology is psychology, and religion is religion.

 

Each of these areas of inquiry has its own "language game"- or context of expression, and I firmly believe that most "philosophical" confusions come from mixing these contexts.  That is what I try to avoid. 

 

If I make a metaphysical statement like "intelligence is light" then I want to label it as a metaphysical statement because clearly IQ scores as a measure of intelligence have nothing to do with how many lumens ( a measure of light)  the light bulb in the room is emitting. In that case, intelligence has nothing to do with light.  "Bringing light where there is darkness" is not about flicking a light switch.

 

I chose that example because it is totally obvious, but in many cases the distinction is not so obvious, and I think much of this thread has come from these kinds of confusions.

 

These are "theraputic" concerns which help us express these complex ideas more clearly.  For those who know what I am talking about, all this is because I have been reading a lot of Wittgenstein, who's entire philosophical oeuvre was dedicated to solving these "problems". 

[mfbukowski]

So let's just call it a day so we don't risk driving poor mfbukowski crazy.

That was a lost cause long long ago! 

 

Just ask my wife!

[CV75]

Ok then no problem.  It's a big deal to me because I am constantly correcting myself so that what I say, I hope, can be read by others so they understand exactly what I mean so that metaphysics is metaphysics logic is logic and psychology is psychology, and religion is religion.

 

Each of these areas of inquiry has its own "language game"- or context of expression, and I firmly believe that most "philosophical" confusions come from mixing these contexts.  That is what I try to avoid. 

 

If I make a metaphysical statement like "intelligence is light" then I want to label it as a metaphysical statement because clearly IQ scores as a measure of intelligence have nothing to do with how many lumens ( a measure of light)  the light bulb in the room is emitting. In that case, intelligence has nothing to do with light.  "Bringing light where there is darkness" is not about flicking a light switch.

 

I chose that example because it is totally obvious, but in many cases the distinction is not so obvious, and I think much of this thread has come from these kinds of confusions.

 

These are "theraputic" concerns which help us express these complex ideas more clearly.  For those who know what I am talking about, all this is because I have been reading a lot of Wittgenstein, who's entire philosophical oeuvre was dedicated to solving these "problems". 

I appreciate where you are coming from, and thank you!

[CV75]

This is good enough for me: You have agreed with my point of view while still holding on to your own parallel point.

Just to clarify: mine is not a parallel point, but one that is well integrated with yours.

[teddyaware]

Just to clarify: mine is not a parallel point, but one that is well integrated with yours.

Even better! You are a kind, highly intelligent and worthy partner in dialogue. Won't it be fun when the Lord shows us how it all works. For humility's sake, it must never be forgotten we are all looking through a glass darkly.

[CV75]

Even better! You are a kind, highly intelligent and worthy partner in dialogue. Won't it be fun when the Lord shows us how it all works. For humility's sake, it must never be forgotten we are all looking through a glass darkly.

As to your first point, I am absolutely not! On the second 2nd and 3rd points, absolutely--!

[mfbukowski]

I finally have the perfect analogy, methinks.

 

Look at my avatar- you see a face.  Is the picture "immaterial"?  "Where" is the face?

 

Is it "in" the pixels, in the coding, on your screen or in your head?

 

It seems to me it really doesn't matter much "where" you want to say it is, but surely it is not "immaterial"

 

Interestingly the picture is no one's "actual" face- it is a self-portrait of an artist intentionally NOT made to "represent" anything "real".  Yet it is clearly recognizable as "a face".

 

So what kind of metaphysical mumbo jumbo can we make up about whether or not the face is "real" or material or immaterial?

 

Why would we want to argue about it?

[CV75]

I finally have the perfect analogy, methinks.

 

Look at my avatar- you see a face.  Is the picture "immaterial"?  "Where" is the face?

 

Is it "in" the pixels, in the coding, on your screen or in your head?

 

It seems to me it really doesn't matter much "where" you want to say it is, but surely it is not "immaterial"

 

Interestingly the picture is no one's "actual" face- it is a self-portrait of an artist intentionally NOT made to "represent" anything "real".  Yet it is clearly recognizable as "a face".

 

So what kind of metaphysical mumbo jumbo can we make up about whether or not the face is "real" or material or immaterial?

 

Why would we want to argue about it?

Nice avatar -- it's rather "unreal"! but I don't see how it could not be composed of matter.

 

I think many of the other subjects that have been brought up in this thread can be viewed as having both material and immaterial aspects that warrant consideration as part of navigating our mortal probation. Some think that matters and some do not.

 

I think it's OK to "argue" or discuss in a non-contentious manner, and not necessarily to sway others to one's own point of view but to add value for those that appreciate that there is more than one way to view things. Some think that is worthwhile and some do not.