The Nature Of The Holy Spirit

[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 still consistent and good for the analogy, in my opinion, just like parables teaching a principle of truth.

[Ahab]

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.

I continue to notice that you use language to share your thoughts, so apparently you think language is useful for something.

When you think you've found something better, please let us know about it.

[CV75]

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.

After all, “Man is spirit” and this spirit the entity that either receives the light (D& 93:33, 37) or rejects it (verses 31-32). That these things exist is a function of Christ availing them to us according to verse 30 (upon mutual agreement with the spirits that do not reject them, otherwise they are not available, according to verses 31-32).

 

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.

So your ideas about light being matter still allows for some things (like agency, faith, etc.) to not be of matter.

[CV75]

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.

I take this to mean that you understand the "spirit of Christmas" to be, in and of itself, material. What about the principle enabling a person (a spirit)  to respond in a certain way to that which is plainly manifest--do you think that is material as well? Spirits are material, their feelings can be said to be material, but what about that which they leverage in order to see the light and then act upon it, resulting in their feeling, thinking and doing?

[CV75]

Intelligent thoughts are immaterial

Some thoughts can be measures as particles--what about those?

[CV75]

but ultimately it doesn't matter if you use flowery language, scriptural language, or simple language.  It still falls short.

That is why I'm wondering whether, at some fundamental level, material and "immaterial" are the same thing (so that all that matters is what we can't describe anyway, i.e. testimony!), or are as "inseparably connected" just as spirit and element are in the resurrected state.

[nebula]

Some thoughts can be measures as particles--what about those?

Could you elaborate on that? It sounds fascinating. This entire thread is fascinating-- thank you all for sharing your thoughts. Language may fall short, as bukowski pointed out, but I think you're all doing a fine job with the tools you have. Wish I had something to add!

[teddyaware]

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.

On subjects like this one, I have always taken my cues from the scriptures and the many brethren who throughout the years have spoken on the subject of the materiality of the spiritual realm. I would imagine you might find fault with them as well, perhaps chiding them for daring to delve into subject matter supposedly way out of the league of anyone but highly trained scientists and philosophers.

Ultimately my point is a simple one that any child could easily understand, whether one wants to slap the fancy label of metaphysics on it or not: All things are composed of matter just as Joseph Smith said they were; God the Father's body is composed of matter, as is Christ's; God the Father's body is animated by spiritual matter, as is Christ's; the light of Christ is composed of refined and pure spiritual matter, not just an amalgamation of abstract ideas,  just as the Lord taught the prophet. These things are not difficult to comprehend and are all over the doctrinal face of Mormonism, and one doesn't have to be a trained metaphysicist to get it.

 

The Holy Spirit is the greatest teacher, and He's not in the habit of superciliously wagging His head at the supposed poor fools who believe they can learn about some of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God without degrees of higher learning from this fallen world's temples of learning.

[Ahab]

Some thoughts can be measures as particles--what about those?

No, thoughts are not particles. We can see indications of brain activity and suppose that indicates someone is thinking, but we can't actually see anyone's thoughts as material objects.

[teddyaware]

I take this to mean that you understand the "spirit of Christmas" to be, in and of itself, material. What about the principle enabling a person (a spirit)  to respond in a certain way to that which is plainly manifest--do you think that is material as well? Spirits are material, their feelings can be said to be material, but what about that which they leverage in order to see the light and then act upon it, resulting in their feeling, thinking and doing?

You must understand that when I speak of refined spiritual matter I include in that classification spiritual light and intelligence, as I believe light and intelligence are an integral and highly active integral part of the universe of substantive spiritual matter.

[teddyaware]

No, thoughts are not particles. We can see indications of brain activity and suppose that indicates someone is thinking, but we can't actually see anyone's thoughts as material objects.

When I imagine the face of an old friend in my mind, does that mental image not take place within the electrical activity of the brain and not in some ethereal world that exists outside of the brain?

[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.

Hey mf, after reading this post more carefully, I can see I misunderstood you. I'm embarrassed and feeling contrite. My apologies. You see, I thought you were comparing God's supernal spiritual light to the grosser form of light produced by the light bulb. I get on people all the time for jumping to conclusions and here I'm guilty of doing the same to you. Nothing more stupid than going to war over a misunderstanding. Again, my apologies.

Edited January 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

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

 

Regards,

Jim

 

Which means one of two things...either Joseph/Sidney (or whoever actually wrote LOF#5) didn't consider the HG to be a person at that early stage in the Church, or the Holy Ghost embodied as a spirit hadn't achieved the level of "God" at that time and they knew it. 

[Ahab]

When I imagine the face of an old friend in my mind, does that mental image not take place within the electrical activity of the brain and not in some ethereal world that exists outside of the brain?

Good job. What you said got me to think about this a little more. I'm firmly convinced that our thought processes actually occur in our spirits, though, otherwise all our thinking would cease when we are dead, and while we can see evidence of our spirits' thought processes by observing some fairly fancy equipment, what we can not do is separate the thoughts from the person who has them so that they are independent objects outside of our minds or our spirits.

So, yeah, they do not exist outside of our minds, and only with our minds are we able to see them and even then only within our own minds.

[Bikeemikey]

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.

It appears that the notion of dark matter-anti matter (lots of such names cropping up) aptly fulfills your requirements of physicists noting behaviors that can only be originating from the "consistent and predictable" impact of unseen matter.

Some are suggesting that upwards of 50% (some think as much as 95% of the universe is made up of material that we can't see.

Pretty cool stuff.

[Bikeemikey]

An interesting aside: if the light of Christ is a material substance that goes out into the world and impacts other matter to act in a specific (good) way then we have a materialistic benchmark to quantify good.

If we were able to observe such matter in action we would be able to demonstrate good (and by its absence or perhaps an opposite kind of material evil) as a verifiable objective and material fact.

No more subjective goods. I can see the appeal of this notion to religious literalists and moral conservatives... Good thing they can't see this so called spirit in action and we are instead left with the religious truth that the impacts of the Holy Spirit (material or immaterial) are 100% personal and private.

[CV75]

Could you elaborate on that? It sounds fascinating. This entire thread is fascinating-- thank you all for sharing your thoughts. Language may fall short, as bukowski pointed out, but I think you're all doing a fine job with the tools you have. Wish I had something to add!

I may have misspoken—I meant “brain waves”, the voltage fluctuations created by ionic flows between the neurons of the brain, which can be recorded with an electroencephalograph. The ions of course are material; their electrons, like light, can be shown to behave like both waves and particles. Since many accept that light is a very fine form of matter, then I’m suggesting that thoughts too are a very fine form of matter.

 

There are studies that associate various types of brain waves with various types of mental states. There are several brain-controlled interface devices on the market, mostly novelty toys and entertainment and so forth that channel brain waves through EEG-based headsets. So at least we know brain waves are real!

 

My understanding is that much of what we consider to be immaterial is actually material on an infinitesimally small level of refinement, though I can’t discount the existence of things that are not material at all. Where we believe there is opposition in all things, it would make sense that the material and immaterial co-exist. And as far as God is concerned, I believe He manages them as if they were the same thing.

[CV75]

No, thoughts are not particles. We can see indications of brain activity and suppose that indicates someone is thinking, but we can't actually see anyone's thoughts as material objects.

I can see some people's thoughts written all over their faces!

[mfbukowski]

That is why I'm wondering whether, at some fundamental level, material and "immaterial" are the same thing (so that all that matters is what we can't describe anyway, i.e. testimony!), or are as "inseparably connected" just as spirit and element are in the resurrected state.

Well yes I agree.  Think about it.  If all is material, "immaterial" is just a mistaken notion. 

 

If everything is A, there is no B, so talking about B is pointless.  In fact it is even pointless to talk about A as A in a sense because A is not a "thing"- it is everything.

 

It just is.  It is like talking about "existence".  I have never seen anything that didn't exist- did you?    So why bother talking about it?  It cannot be compared to anything else, it cannot be defined, there isn't anything to be said about it really.  To define the characteristics of "existence" you would have to contrast it to "non-existence" and by doing so you try to make "non-existence" a "something" and so it is no longer non-existent!

 

So yes, once you have stated that "Nothing is immaterial" you either agree with it or not, and that is the end of the story.  You might ask about what it would mean for a "thing" to not have "material".   Is courage a "thing"?   How much does it weigh?  Where is it located?

 

Certainly it is a description of the way people sometimes act, but does that make it a "thing"?

 

Now we could debate whether or not courage is a "thing"- but what would that get us?  It would get the less logically inclined very confused- that's about all!

 

Metaphysical discourse leads nowhere.

[mfbukowski]

On subjects like this one, I have always taken my cues from the scriptures and the many brethren who throughout the years have spoken on the subject of the materiality of the spiritual realm. I would imagine you might find fault with them as well, perhaps chiding them for daring to delve into subject matter supposedly way out of the league of anyone but highly trained scientists and philosophers.

Ultimately my point is a simple one that any child could easily understand, whether one wants to slap the fancy label of metaphysics on it or not: All things are composed of matter just as Joseph Smith said they were; God the Father's body is composed of matter, as is Christ's; God the Father's body is animated by spiritual matter, as is Christ's; the light of Christ is composed of refined and pure spiritual matter, not just an amalgamation of abstract ideas,  just as the Lord taught the prophet. These things are not difficult to comprehend and are all over the doctrinal face of Mormonism, and one doesn't have to be a trained metaphysicist to get it.

 

The Holy Spirit is the greatest teacher, and He's not in the habit of superciliously wagging His head at the supposed poor fools who believe they can learn about some of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God without degrees of higher learning from this fallen world's temples of learning.

Sure- it all is.  But realize that that says nothing.  It's like saying that everything that exists, exists and there is nothing that does not exist.

 

Everything is energy too since matter and energy are interchangeable.   So what?  How does that change my life?  How does that make me happier or closer to Christ?

 

Basically anytime you say "Everything is X" you are saying a tautology.  A=A.  You are defining "Everything" as X.  You are stating an equation.  Maybe it is a correct equation or not- but how does one verify it?

 

The statement is unfalsifiable.  I mean I have no problem with non-falsifiable statements- all of religion is comprised of non-falsifiable statements, but just understand that what you are ultimately saying is that "It makes me happy to think that A=A, because there is not much content otherwise.

 

You say A=A and someone disagrees and says A=not A, and neither statement is falsifiable.  Net gain zero.  The Holy Ghost is substance.  The Holy Ghost is not substance.  Nothing illuminated, net gain zero.  And because it says it in the scriptures that doesn't change anything.  The scriptures are about what gives our lives meaning- they are not about science.

 

They are not supposed to be falsifiable.  They are essentially inspired poetry, true about our experience of God and what life is all about, but not "factual" in a scientific sense.

Edited February 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So do chemicals cause thoughts or do thoughts cause chemicals?

 

Neither and both are right.  It is a false dichotomy.  Chemicals and what they are ARE thoughts and vice-versa.  If "all is matter" we cannot now start making some kind of distinction between material chemicals and immaterial thoughts.   Gotta keep it consistent, but know that it is a story we like to believe that makes sense of things we want to make sense of.

 

I like the goo mp3 but it also had problems.  If there is ultimately little kernels of brain or dna in the goo, all the mystery goes away.

 

Now if there was nothing in there but a sack of water- now THAT would be a real mystery!

 

Now about Santa Claus......  

 

Sorry all!

Edited February 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On subjects like this one, I have always taken my cues from the scriptures and the many brethren who throughout the years have spoken on the subject of the materiality of the spiritual realm. I would imagine you might find fault with them as well, perhaps chiding them for daring to delve into subject matter supposedly way out of the league of anyone but highly trained scientists and philosophers.

Ultimately my point is a simple one that any child could easily understand, whether one wants to slap the fancy label of metaphysics on it or not: All things are composed of matter just as Joseph Smith said they were; God the Father's body is composed of matter, as is Christ's; God the Father's body is animated by spiritual matter, as is Christ's; the light of Christ is composed of refined and pure spiritual matter, not just an amalgamation of abstract ideas,  just as the Lord taught the prophet. These things are not difficult to comprehend and are all over the doctrinal face of Mormonism, and one doesn't have to be a trained metaphysicist to get it.

 

The Holy Spirit is the greatest teacher, and He's not in the habit of superciliously wagging His head at the supposed poor fools who believe they can learn about some of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God without degrees of higher learning from this fallen world's temples of learning.

As often happens, I don't know what you are talking about.

 

I find fault with none of them, and if you think my discourse reflects my education you should ask the next 6th grade educated bright person you meet whether or not there is immaterial matter or if the Holy Ghost is made up of "substance".

 

I am on the side of common sense.  It takes "education" to dream up metaphysics.

[mfbukowski]

Hey mf, after reading this post more carefully, I can see I misunderstood you. I'm embarrassed and feeling contrite. My apologies. You see, I thought you were comparing God's supernal spiritual light to the grosser form of light produced by the light bulb. I get on people all the time for jumping to conclusions and here I'm guilty of doing the same to you. Nothing more stupid than going to war over a misunderstanding. Again, my apologies.

OOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I agree.  Very sorry. 

 

I always read these posts in order- I should have jumped to the end first this time!!

[teddyaware]

As often happens, I don't know what you are talking about.

 

I find fault with none of them, and if you think my discourse reflects my education you should ask the next 6th grade educated bright person you meet whether or not there is immaterial matter or if the Holy Ghost is made up of "substance".

 

I am on the side of common sense.  It takes "education" to dream up metaphysics.

So as to clear up the confusion, I started this thread because the mods kicked me off the recent thread on analogies of the trinity. I felt I had unfinished business with some people on that thread who were disagreeing with me and so I started this one as a way to pick up where I left off.

One of the points I was trying to make on the trinity thread is that the Holy Spirit, or Light of Christ, is composed of spiritual matter, which spiritual matter the scriptures say "fills the immensity of space. Some folks on that thread were saying the Holy Spirit or Light of Christ is not a composed of spiritual matter but is rather something akin to a spirit or feeling of good will between people with no physical component. I disagreed with this idea and hence the op that started this thread. Reread my original post and you'll see where I wanted this thread to go. The problem is that so many threads end up veering completely away from the op's original intent.

Edited February 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Well yes I agree.  Think about it.  If all is material, "immaterial" is just a mistaken notion. 

 

If everything is A, there is no B, so talking about B is pointless.  In fact it is even pointless to talk about A as A in a sense because A is not a "thing"- it is everything.

 

It just is.  It is like talking about "existence".  I have never seen anything that didn't exist- did you?    So why bother talking about it?  It cannot be compared to anything else, it cannot be defined, there isn't anything to be said about it really.  To define the characteristics of "existence" you would have to contrast it to "non-existence" and by doing so you try to make "non-existence" a "something" and so it is no longer non-existent!

 

So yes, once you have stated that "Nothing is immaterial" you either agree with it or not, and that is the end of the story.  You might ask about what it would mean for a "thing" to not have "material".   Is courage a "thing"?   How much does it weigh?  Where is it located?

 

Certainly it is a description of the way people sometimes act, but does that make it a "thing"?

 

Now we could debate whether or not courage is a "thing"- but what would that get us?  It would get the less logically inclined very confused- that's about all!

 

Metaphysical discourse leads nowhere.

Yes, for example:

Abraham 3:34: “…We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell…”

D&C 88:87: “And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.”

These two verses, to me, indicate that space is where matter can be placed, and matter contains space. All space has greater or lesser matter occupying it, and all matter leaves room for space. While that might show that space is immaterial, it might also show that space is also finer matter.

Gotta love it!

Perhaps the material and the immaterial are a compound in one, and each can serve as the other from different perspectives and under different conditions.

Then we have D&C 93:30, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” So here we have existence, whether in the form of a medal (Wizard of Oz reference) or courage!