The Nature Of The Holy Spirit

[theplains]

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. 

 

Do you have a source for when the LDS Church began teaching the Holy Ghost is a

personage in the Godhead?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[mfbukowski]

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!

I agree yet what we are saying is metaphysics.  It is a story we are putting together to explain the way things might be, it is when we start thinking that we are "right" is precisely where we go wrong, because no one story can capture it all

 

But that notion certainly magnifies what I said- that space itself is matter- and now even science wonders about dark matter

 

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.

 

I love that you put the idea of "perspectives" in there because that is crucial.  It is the perspective of the observer which literally defines what is linguistically, or if one wants to use the other terminology one could say that intelligence - the perspective of an intelligence- the perceptions of an intelligence- creates everything by definitions.  It's kind of like the old "if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound" question- from my pov "something happens" but whether or not is is a "tree" that makes some definable "sound" is what the question comes.  Do we define the event as a "tree falling making a sound" or without an observer who doesn't notice the "event" is it an "event" at all?

 

So one might say that God's intelligence fills the universe of all that is knowable- to God.  That is in a sense a tautology.  God's knowledge is what defines what God knows which what defines what we call "the universe".  If God doesn't or cannot know about it, in a sense it doesn't "exist" because it is totally irrelevant to our lives, just as the tree falling in the forest is.  If you want to see it as an "event" or not- it's up to how you want to define the terms.

 

If that means the same as "The Holy Spirit is a substance that fills the universe" then fine.  God's consciousness certainly knows all that is knowable to God, so both statements mean the same thing.  So some may see that as immaterial and others as material, but in a sense the distinction doesn't matter.  We can say that "God knows everything" which certainly still all means the same- all of these are equivalent in meaning.  "God's glory is Intelligence which is light and truth" is another example of saying the same thing in different words from a different perspective.

 

So for me, the argument about whether or not it is "material" or "immaterial" is itself IMMATERIAL!

 

They are all just stories made to explain different points of view.  The elephant is not a rope, nor a tree, nor a wall- because we cannot see the whole elephant.  Only the one who organized it all, "sees" it all through his Intelligence.

 

And someday we will grow up to be like him, and organize through our intelligences.  But in a tiny way- isn't that what we are trying to do right here, with these stories of space and intelligence? 

 

Aren't we like little children playing with our legos so we learn how to build real mansions when we grow up?

[CV75]

But that notion certainly magnifies what I said- that space itself is matter- and now even science wonders about dark matter

That is where I was going next (hardly the final frontier!)!

 

 

Aren't we like little children playing with our legos so we learn how to build real mansions when we grow up?

This has to do with my questions about whether the degree of an entity's material refinement has anything to do with acting, or acting upon, being acted upon, or acting with something else. Equating material refinement with divine power (which is presumably highly organized) misses the observation that chaotic, unorganized material is also by nature very refined matter.

[mfbukowski]

That is where I was going next (hardly the final frontier!)!

 

 

This has to do with my questions about whether the degree of an entity's material refinement has anything to do with acting, or acting upon, being acted upon, or acting with something else. Equating material refinement with divine power (which is presumably highly organized) misses the observation that chaotic, unorganized material is also by nature very refined matter.

Yin and yang- opposition in all things.

 

And on a scientific level of course even random atoms or molecules floating around are highly organized in themselves.  But again, we must always be aware that we can never escape a human perspective- because that is what we are.  We will never see the color of radio waves or really hear the music of the spheres in orbit.  It's metaphors all the way down- some work better than others for a specific purpose.

 

That's why it's best to keep them simple because none of them capture all there is to capture anyway.

 

I suppose there must be intelligence to "act".  I think that is implied in the way we use the word.  In a chemical reaction does one chemical "act" on the other?

 

Is asking that even relevant to anything?  What does such a question get us by way of creating a story?  What is the value of thinking in those terms?  I don't know.

Edited February 1, 2014 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

I suppose there must be intelligence to "act".  I think that is implied in the way we use the word.  In a chemical reaction does one chemical "act" on the other?

Using this example, rust is made by iron acting on oxygen and also vice -versa... But something is acting on them to introduce one to the other, and some law of some kind is acting in the whole arrangement (since very much doubt that the elements are introducing themselves to each other or acting on the law to make rust of themselves). So I think "intent" must have something to do with "acting." And when dust, elements, winds, waves, trees and mountains, etc. "obey," I think it is figurative inasmuch as anything whose spirit is not accountable lacks volition.

 

Is asking that even relevant to anything?  What does such a question get us by way of creating a story?  What is the value of thinking in those terms?  I don't know.

For me, asking such a question is one way of thinking in terms that are relevant to finding out and knowing how "the legos" work (someone will tell a relevant story or I will discover one), so that I can in deed control the chemical reaction according to my intents and purposes, and/or act upon the relevant laws to do so, and/or act according to the relevant laws to do so.

[mfbukowski]

Well I think you have hit it when you mentioned "intent"- I suppose it is having a plan "in mind" or an intelligence acting purposefully to achieve a goal.   One celled organisms will move toward food with a "plan" to eat it, so the level of intelligence need not be great.  But I don't think the goal of oxygen is to create rust.    So here we are back at "intelligent design" again!

Edited February 2, 2014 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

Well I think you have hit it when you mentioned "intent"- I suppose it is having a plan "in mind" or an intelligence acting purposefully to achieve a goal.   One celled organisms will move toward food with a "plan" to eat it, so the level of intelligence need not be great.  But I don't think the goal of oxygen is to create rust.    So here we are back at "intelligent design" again!

D&C has a lot to say about the material nature of spirit and light, which could allow the impression that there is nothing that is not of matter. I think Alma helps the situation by defining what is real, not in terms of matter, but in terms of that which stimulates our “swelling motions” (which are “felt” both psychically and physically) and calls it discernible “light” (Alma 32:35). This comes by way of experimenting with “the word” or a principle of truth. Interestingly he uses a very physical story to explain this, and perhaps this is what is going on with the explanations in D&C 131, 93, 84, 88, etc.

 

So I think both "realms" are real, and both exist, though obviously we are best taught in the way Alma and Joseph Smith teach (and certainly they do so with the Spirit). I think the Lord then fills in the gaps as we become more like Him.

[mfbukowski]

D&C has a lot to say about the material nature of spirit and light, which could allow the impression that there is nothing that is not of matter. I think Alma helps the situation by defining what is real, not in terms of matter, but in terms of that which stimulates our “swelling motions” (which are “felt” both psychically and physically) and calls it discernible “light” (Alma 32:35). This comes by way of experimenting with “the word” or a principle of truth. Interestingly he uses a very physical story to explain this, and perhaps this is what is going on with the explanations in D&C 131, 93, 84, 88, etc.

 

So I think both "realms" are real, and both exist, though obviously we are best taught in the way Alma and Joseph Smith teach (and certainly they do so with the Spirit). I think the Lord then fills in the gaps as we become more like Him.

Exactly.  And that is why I like Pragmatism as a philosophical framework, because it affirms both a materialistic and fully empirical approach (what "feels right"in morals is just as true as scientific observation is in its sphere).  It fits well on both counts.

[CV75]

all spirit is matter

the light of Christ, as an actual spiritual substance

Considering the past several posts, all spirit is matter, but is all light matter?

 

It might be good to trace how light (as in the light of Christ) can also take such forms as power, law, "the word" and so forth--and whether this allows for two kinds of light represented in the scriptures (material and immaterial).

[teddyaware]

Considering the past several posts, all spirit is matter, but is all light matter?

 

It might be good to trace how light (as in the light of Christ) can also take such forms as power, law, "the word" and so forth--and whether this allows for two kinds of light represented in the scriptures (material and immaterial).

I believe any light having physical and/or spiritual power associated with it must of necessity have substance. We are told God's word is very powerful and I must say I find it hard to imagine a mere abstract thought, with no inherent power to perform functions, could, for instance, create the universe. The physical light we see with our eyes palpably demonstrates it has real power stored within it; power to perform functions and affect various changes within the material universe. As a consequence, t's hard to believe purer forms of spiritual light would not also have stored inherent power to make things happen.

 

Though physical light may seem more ethereal and elusive when compared to the gross matter we find in a stone, physical light's discernibility and stored power would cause me to believe purer forms of light, or spirit if you will, are also forms of matter with real inherent power.

 

Also remember that though the thoughts and images of the imagination may seem abstract and immaterial, they are always taking place within the matrix of the human mind. Take away the brain, the nervous system, and the functional support these components of the body receive from the other members and organs of the body and thought ceases -- at least insofar as the mortal body is concerned. And though a disembodied spirit may continue to think and imagine without the body, it must be remembered the spirit is a body with parts and organs as well, only spirits are composed of purer spiritual matter.

 

Ideas are only abstractions until they are made real in the real universe. But as I said, ideas exist within the physical or spiritual mind or they exist nowhere. You can have a mind without a particular idea, but you can't have ideas without a mind made of either gross physical matter or one made of purer spiritual matter.

Edited February 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Plato is alive and well I see.

 

Sigh.

 

I suppose we should also subscribe to ancient Greek medicine then.  When we get sick we should make sure our black bile is balanced with our yellow bile.  That is very important for health.

Edited February 3, 2014 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

I believe any light having physical and/or spiritual power associated with it must of necessity have substance. We are told God's word is very powerful and I must say I find it hard to imagine a mere abstract thought, with no inherent power to perform functions, could, for instance, create the universe. The physical light we see with our eyes palpably demonstrates it has real power stored within it; power to perform functions and affect various changes within the material universe. As a consequence, t's hard to believe purer forms of spiritual light would not also have stored inherent power to make things happen.

 

Though physical light may seem more ethereal and elusive when compared to the gross matter we find in a stone, physical light's discernibility and stored power would cause me to believe purer forms of light, or spirit if you will, are also forms of matter with real inherent power.

 

Also remember that though the thoughts and images of the imagination may seem abstract and immaterial, they are always taking place within the matrix of the human mind. Take away the brain, the nervous system, and the functional support these components of the body receive from the other members and organs of the body and thought ceases -- at least insofar as the mortal body is concerned. And though a disembodied spirit may continue to think and imagine without the body, it must be remembered the spirit is a body with parts and organs as well, only spirits are composed of purer spiritual matter.

 

Ideas are only abstractions until they are made real in the real universe. But as I said, ideas exist within the physical or spiritual mind or they exist nowhere. You can have a mind without a particular idea, but you can't have ideas without a mind made of either gross physical matter or one made of purer spiritual matter.

Is there a requirement that all abstract thoughts have no inherent power? Is faith, the principle of power, an abstract or a material?

Also, there is a difference between “spiritual” and “spirit.” “Spirit” is matter; law is “spiritual;” a glorified, law-abiding resurrected body is both, plus element which is also matter (“Behold, I am the law…”).

Purer forms of light are still matter, but I don’t see the requirement that all light is matter, for example, “law” which is one descriptor of the light of Christ. Are you suggesting that things such as faith and law are comprised of matter?

Just because an abstract can only be conjured or experienced by its material host doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist outside the host, or tht otehr hosts conjure or experience it. Though for the host, for all intents and purposes it might as well not exist. For example, faith exists whether we exercise it or not; the law exists whether we exercise it or not. Even the faithless will say that faith is for someone else and the rule-breakers will say that the laws are for someone else.

Edited February 3, 2014 by CV75

[teddyaware]

Plato is alive and well I see.

 

Sigh.

 

I suppose we should also subscribe to ancient Greek medicine then.  When we get sick we should make sure our black bile is balanced with our yellow bile.  That is very important for health.

What I set forth is the diametric opposite of Platonism. He believed in a quiescent, immaterial realm of pure ideas and ideals frozen in a perfect, undisturbible  eternity. My understanding is that ideas and ideals cannot exist outside of a material universe filled with thinking intelligences composed of matter. It seems my effusive use of language has once again obscure the very point I was trying to make. But where, I ask, is there any line or expression in my post that points to any belief on my part that there is an immaterial eternal realm of pure abstract ideas apart from matter? 

[CV75]

my effusive use of language

Do you consider effusivity, or any other property of language a form of matter?

[teddyaware]

Is there a requirement that all abstract thoughts have no inherent power? Is faith, the principle of power, an abstract or a material?

Also, there is a difference between “spiritual” and “spirit.” “Spirit” is matter; law is “spiritual;” a glorified, law-abiding resurrected body is both, plus element which is also matter (“Behold, I am the law…”).

Purer forms of light are still matter, but I don’t see the requirement that all light is matter, for example, “law” which is one descriptor of the light of Christ. Are you suggesting that things such as faith and law are comprised of matter?

Just because an abstract can only be conjured or experienced by its material host doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exist outside the host, or the other hosts conjure or experience it. Though for the host, for all intents and purposes it might as well not exist. For example, faith exists whether we exercise it or not; the law exists whether we exercise it or not. Even the faithless will say that faith is for someone else and the rule-breakers will say that the laws are for someone else.

It's interesting that you would bring up law as something possibly purely abstract when Doctrine and Covenants 88 says the following:

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings;

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 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.

 

It's pretty hard to imagine that an immaterial an abstraction of pure thought would have the power to give life to all things in a material universe, and be the very power of God and embodiment of His law.

 

As for your other questions, I offer the thinking of Parley P Pratt (this time unabridged). He can do a better job than I in explaining the substantive nature of spiritual light and the Holy Spirit:

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.

[p.191]This substance is widely diffused among the elements of space. This Holy Spirit, under the control of the Great Eloheim, is the grand moving cause of all intelligences, and by which they act.

This is the great, positive, controlling element of all other elements. It is omnipresent by reason of the infinitude of its particles, and it comprehends all things.

It is the controlling agent or executive, which organizes and puts in motion all worlds, and which, by the mandate of the Almighty, or of any of His commissioned agents, performs all the mighty wonders, signs and miracles, ever manifested in the name of the Lord—the turning of the earth backward on its axis, the dividing of the sea, the removing of a mountain, the raising of the dead, or the healing of the sick.

It penetrates the pores of the most solid substances, pierces the human system to its most inward recesses, discerns the thoughts and intents of the heart. It has power to move through space with an inconceivable velocity, far exceeding the tardy motions of electricity, or of physical light.

It comprehends the past, present, and future, in all their fulness. Its inherent properties enbrace all the attributes of intelligence and affection.

It is endowed with knowledge, wisdom, truth, love, charity, justice, and mercy, in all their ramifications.

In short, it is the attributes of the eternal power and Godhead.

Those beings who receive of its fulness are called sons of God, because they are perfected in all its attributes and powers, and being in communication with it, can, by its use, perform all things.

Those beings who receive not a fulness, but a measure of it, can know and perform some things, but not all.

This is the true light, which in some measure illuminates all men. It is, in its less refined particles, the physical light which reflects from the sun, moon, and stars, and other substances; and by reflection on the eye, makes visible the truths of the outward world.

It is, also, in its higher degrees, the intellectual light of our inward and spiritual organs, by which we reason, discern, judge, compare, comprehend and remember the subjects within our reach.

Its inspiration constitutes instinct in animal life, reason in man, vision in the Prophets, and is continually flowing from the Godhead throughout all His creatures.

Such is the Godhead, as manifested in His words, and in His works. He dwells in His own eternal palaces of precious stones and gold, in the Royal City of the heavenly Jerusalem.

He sits enthroned in the midst of all His creations, and is filled and encircled with light unapproachable by those of the lower spheres.

[p.192]He associates with myriads of His own begotten sons and daughters who, by translation or resurrection, have triumphed over death.

His ministers are sent forth from his presence to all parts of His dominions.

His Holy Spirit centres 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)

Edited February 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Do you consider effusivity, or any other property of language a form of matter?

Effusiveness cannot exist outside of the material mind. It can only exist within the material mind of either the one who's being effusive or within the material mind of someone whose encountered said effusiveness. Thoughts happen inside the material mind, they cannot exist outside of the material mind. We can assume thoughts exist outside of matter, but every thought necessarily involves the interaction of matter and light, both of which have substance. When one imagines the face of a beloved family member, it is happening within the material mind, not somewhere out in empty space (if there even is such a thing).

Edited February 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

It's interesting that you would bring up law as something possibly purely abstract when Doctrine and Covenants 88 says the following:

***

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed

So you are suggesting that light-as-law is like a string, and different laws are comprised of different material “strings” of unique makeups that God uses in combination to govern all things. The law of gravity is one material "string," the law of electromagnetism another, etc.; the laws of opposition, agency, chastity, tithe, etc. are each "strings" of other qualities (refinement, intelligence, purpose, etc.). Unless you are talking about a unified string that covers all laws.

[CV75]

So you are suggesting that light-as-law is like a string, and different laws are comprised of different material “strings” of unique makeups that God uses in combination to govern all things. The law of gravity is one material "string," the law of electromagnetism another, etc.; the laws of opposition, agency, chastity, tithe, etc. are each "strings" of other qualities (refinement, intelligence, purpose, etc.). Unless you are talking about a unified string that covers all laws.

Effusiveness is relative; mine is not yours, and yours exists outside of mine—so it both exists and does not, at the same time.

[teddyaware]

Effusiveness is relative; mine is not yours, and yours exists outside of mine—so it both exists and does not, at the same time.

If it exists in some material mind, any material mind, it exists. Just because I don't own or haven't seen your car doesn't mean that it exists and doesn't exist at the same time. Isn't this fun?!?

[teddyaware]

So you are suggesting that light-as-law is like a string, and different laws are comprised of different material “strings” of unique makeups that God uses in combination to govern all things. The law of gravity is one material "string," the law of electromagnetism another, etc.; the laws of opposition, agency, chastity, tithe, etc. are each "strings" of other qualities (refinement, intelligence, purpose, etc.). Unless you are talking about a unified string that covers all laws.

Read Parley Pratt, as he answers your questions better than I. It's not my fault if D&C 88 says that the substantive light of Christ is the very law that governs all things. I'm just a messenger.

Question: Do you believe the uncreated intelligence or light of truth mentioned in D&C 88 has substance?

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

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.

 

Question: How can truth and intelligence be left independent, to act for itself (themselves), if pure thought is just an immaterial abstraction with no substance and life of its own?

[CV75]

Read Parley Pratt, as he answers your questions better than I. It's not my fault if D&C 88 says that the substantive light of Christ is the very law that governs all things. I'm just a messenger.

Question: Do you believe the uncreated intelligence or light of truth mentioned in D&C 88 has substance?

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

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.

 

Question: How can truth and intelligence be left independent, to act for itself (themselves), if pure thought is just an immaterial abstraction with no substance and life of its own?

I’ve read and think I understand both—but for all they say about matter, which covers a lot, they don’t spell out exactly what is and what isn’t matter. For example, spirit is clearly matter, but is light always spirit and always matter? Are other things?

RE: Question (1): Yes, I do believe that intelligence and the light of truth have substance, but I also think that some things, and even some forms or aspects of light and intelligence might not be made of matter, but consist of something equally as real.

Where “uncreated intelligence” refers to our being in the beginning with the Father, and that we are co-eternal with Him, and that we are individuals that possess agency, I am not inclined to believe that translates into being eternally comprised exclusively of matter; perhaps matter is not all we are most fundamentally made of. Intelligence is the power that conceives, judges or reasons, and may or may not be substance in all of its forms—that from some fundamental level, this co-eternal, uncreated intelligence/individual begins and continues to interact and relate with substances of increasing complexity and decreasing refinement; it is “added upon” in the resurrection with both element and glory.

Also note that “Man was also in the beginning with God,” and “Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” are two separate statements. These scriptures and Abraham 3 might allow us to use the terms “man” or “spirit” (“man is spirit”) and “intelligence” interchangeably, but there are many other scriptural references where that relationship needn’t be so, exclusive, or even make sense.

I think that for all he said about intelligence, Joseph Smith did not equate intelligence exclusively with matter, and by using it synonymously with spirit, light, knowledge, power, etc., without saying that anything more than “spirit is matter” (and I do believe the scripture, “all spirit is matter”), leaves it open as to how much or whether matter is always involved with intelligence.

So I think that spirit and element are the only things that are exclusively matter, and that together they have the capacity to channel eternal intelligence, light and truth. The person’s spirit has the inherent capacity, and the element has the borrowed capacity by virtue of the spirit.

How can truth and intelligence be left independent, to act for itself (themselves), if pure thought is just an immaterial abstraction with no substance and life of its own?

RE Question (2): It is interesting to me that truth and intelligence don’t act until God has placed them in a sphere to act. The co-eternal individual uncreated intelligence, if that is what you mean by pure thought, doesn’t act until God sets it up it to do so. I suppose this sphere is created by our passage from a “co-eternal” status into the more “stewarded” status of spirit children.

[CV75]

If it exists in some material mind, any material mind, it exists.

Certaiinly--but that doesn't mean it is exclusively of substance or matter.

[mfbukowski]

What I set forth is the diametric opposite of Platonism. He believed in a quiescent, immaterial realm of pure ideas and ideals frozen in a perfect, undisturbible  eternity. My understanding is that ideas and ideals cannot exist outside of a material universe filled with thinking intelligences composed of matter. It seems my effusive use of language has once again obscure the very point I was trying to make. But where, I ask, is there any line or expression in my post that points to any belief on my part that there is an immaterial eternal realm of pure abstract ideas apart from matter? 

Fair enough!

 

I stand corrected!.

 

I apologize for the misunderstanding.  It is hard to speak in terms which convey these kind of ideas because our very language is infused with the idea of "immaterial" entities.

 

Take this for example:

 

 

Ideas are only abstractions until they are made real in the real universe. But as I said, ideas exist within the physical or spiritual mind or they exist nowhere. You can have a mind without a particular idea, but you can't have ideas without a mind made of either gross physical matter or one made of purer spiritual matter.

 

I think ideas are never "abstractions" - I don't know what that means.  There is no difference for me between the "real universe" and anything "abstract".

 

There is no difference between the "physical" and the "spiritual" mind.

 

You cannot have a mind without an idea.

 

I think the best use of language is to forget about using the words "substance"- because it is so philosophically charged with meaning. "Spiritual mind" is a term I don't understand.

 

I think all you need to say is that even spirit is "matter" but more refined- just to define the term, and then just say that all is physical.  Maybe put quotes around "spiritual" to show that you are using the word in a different way than it is commonly used.

 

But as far as those 3 quoted sentences, after making the point that even spirit is matter, I would simply say that ideas and mind are just as physical as anything else.  Period.

 

So our misunderstanding then is just semantic.  But actually it is totally understandable because I have been thinking and talking like this for 40 years now, and actually a lot of people misunderstand my use of language and make me to be some kind of theistic atheist or something because of how I speak about these matters.

 

But I do so for a specific reason- in fact to challenge the use of words which are so loaded with meaning.  We need to break free of the attachments we have to such words.

 

But now I get it, and we are definitely on the same page.

[teddyaware]

Certaiinly--but that doesn't mean it is exclusively of substance or matter.

I think that this can be solved simply by determining if light (the activities of the brain are largely dynamic activities of light pulses and electrical currents) is spirit, If light is spirit, then we may conclude the things we imagine actually do exist within the mind as impressions or visualizations that are made of light or spirit. Here's some support for this idea:

45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ. (D&C 84)

 

And remember, it was the Lord who taught Joseph Smith that all spirit is matter, but matter that is too fine and pure to be discerned by scientific observation. 

 

Remarkably, the Lord taught Joseph Smith that even His voice is Spirit. Get a load of this:

66 Behold, that which you hear is as the voice of one crying in the wilderness—in the wilderness, because you cannot see him—my voice, because my voice is Spirit; my Spirit is truth; truth abideth and hath no end; and if it be in you it shall abound.

 

So even the sound of the voice -- either the human voice we hear on earth, or the Lord's voice that we can usually only discern with our spirit -- is also a manifestation of either gross matter of the highly refined matter we call the Spirit.

Edited February 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Fair enough!

 

I stand corrected!.

 

I apologize for the misunderstanding.  It is hard to speak in terms which convey these kind of ideas because our very language is infused with the idea of "immaterial" entities.

 

Take this for example:

 

I think ideas are never "abstractions" - I don't know what that means.  There is no difference for me between the "real universe" and anything "abstract".

 

There is no difference between the "physical" and the "spiritual" mind.

 

You cannot have a mind without an idea.

 

I think the best use of language is to forget about using the words "substance"- because it is so philosophically charged with meaning. "Spiritual mind" is a term I don't understand.

 

I think all you need to say is that even spirit is "matter" but more refined- just to define the term, and then just say that all is physical.  Maybe put quotes around "spiritual" to show that you are using the word in a different way than it is commonly used.

 

But as far as those 3 quoted sentences, after making the point that even spirit is matter, I would simply say that ideas and mind are just as physical as anything else.  Period.

 

So our misunderstanding then is just semantic.  But actually it is totally understandable because I have been thinking and talking like this for 40 years now, and actually a lot of people misunderstand my use of language and make me to be some kind of theistic atheist or something because of how I speak about these matters.

 

But I do so for a specific reason- in fact to challenge the use of words which are so loaded with meaning.  We need to break free of the attachments we have to such words.

 

But now I get it, and we are definitely on the same page.

Glad to see we're on the same page. I already kind of already knew we weren't far apart but my bombastic language (a habit I find exceedingly difficult to brake, probably due to some deep-seated insecurity) can cause me to become my own worst enemy when it comes to written communication. As a consequence, simple ideas can sound very complex and complex ideas become bewilderingly mysterious.

As to my line that states "Ideas are only abstractions until they are made real in the real universe," a per your suggestion, I would now modify it to say "Ideas might be said by some to be immaterial abstractions but in reality this is not true, because even the vaguest of mental impressions are actually projected creations of the light, energy and matter that exists within the human mind."