The Nature Of The Holy Spirit

[teddyaware]

I understand that the immaterial is not the same as matter, and cannot do the same things that matter can, but that it does serve a function apart and in conjunction with the material.

For example, I don’t see certain properties of a material (let’s call an exalted, inseparably connected sprit-and-element person a “material”) necessarily consisting of matter in and of themselves. I go back to such things as agency, faith and law – I don’t see these as forms of matter.

While significant things are said about matter in our scriptures, I find sufficient references to things that are not of matter to warrant some acceptance that non-material things do exist.

One of the reasons D&C spells out that intelligence was not created is that at the time, intelligence was defined as “A spiritual being; as a created intelligence. It is believed that the universe is peopled with innumerable superior intelligences.”--1828 Edition, Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language. Joseph Smith’s revelation corrected this notion. He also taught that spirit is matter, but that does not require that “intelligence” (when not used synonymously with “spirit”), as a property of spirit, exists exclusively as matter.

Edited February 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Agency, faith, and law cannot exist apart from mind. These things exist in mind as real impulses and responses to matter or they exist nowhere. The Lectures on Faith says "We understand that when a man works by faith he works by mental exertion instead of physical force." But mental exertion is something just as real as driving a nail. Waves in the ocean very real, though we cannot see the forces that causes the waves, yet all wave dynamics are real and involve real matter and real forces -- there is nothing immaterial about it.

Edited February 4, 2014 by CV75

[teddyaware]

I would say that the meaning behind the tangible speech and print, or even behind the neurochemical processes underlying and using them, is not tangible but is still "chair" and so forth, which is clearly tangible. Again, this takes nothing away from the material composition of anything, just that there is a non-material component also in operation.

Edited February 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Here's a simple experiment to help you to understand my point of view. Let me ask you to close your eyes and try to see in your imagination the face of someone you know and love. When you "see" the projection of that face in your mind, you are actually seeing a real image created within the mind. The image isn't the real person, but it is a real projection of the face created by spirit, light and matter. They say some great artists can clearly visualize a finished work of art before the work of creating that piece of art has even begun. Now the visualization within the mind of the artist is not the finished piece of art but it is a real visualization that actually exists as a projection within the artist's mind -- again, a real visualization created by spirit, light and matter within the brain. The visualization is real even if it isn't the finished work of art.

I have a hunch that this separating of the physical and so-called immaterial spiritual world is what persuaded the Greek influenced post-apostolic Christian church to embrace the "idea" of an immaterial God. So we have to tread very cautiously when entertaining notions that pure thought is immaterial in nature -- it is not. Pure thought or intelligence is just as real as the physical light that lights our world.

I understand the example and share the same viewpoint about it. I also believe that God is an exalted Man of flesh and bone. In addition, I believe that there are immaterial principles that work in conjunction with us and with God as material beings.

Gravity is a good example. It is understood by some scientists to involve a (controversially hypothetical) particle that carries gravity or mediates its operation. That fits well with the “all things are matter” philosopy. However, the actual law the particle follows, or which the Lord follows in moving it (and which Newton and Einstein have only been able to articulate with varying degrees of accuracy), is not the particle itself. The law of gravity is the principle of action or power for the particle, and faith is the principle of action or power for the Lord.

[Ahab]

We do not just get it by being begat by God. Lucifer was begotten by God and he is totally alienated from the Spirit of God, yet he is still a spirit. Being uncreated intelligences and then begotten spirit children of God, who lived in heaven, gives us a good head start, but it is most certainly not enough, as I'm sure you already know. After the fall we enter into a world where spiritual death reigns upon the accountable, and the only way we can regain what was lost in the fall is to seek the Spirit of God in greater and greater measure until the perfect day when our own spiritual death is fully overcome.

23 And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness.

24 That which is of God is light; and he that receiveth light, and continueth in God, receiveth more light; and that light groweth brighter and brighter until the perfect day.

25 And again, verily I say unto you, and I say it that you may know the truth, that you may chase darkness from among you; (D&C 50)

Yes we do get the spirit/Spirit of God just by being begat by God, just not as developed as his spirit is.

It is because he has developed the spirit within him that he can do all he can do, and although we may not choose to develop our spirits as much as he has we still have the potential because we have the same spirit, or the same kind of spirit, which is the spirit of God, within us.

I don't know how I can say it any plainer than that.

[Ahab]

Here's a simple experiment to help you to understand my point of view. Let me ask you to close your eyes and try to see in your imagination the face of someone you know and love. When you "see" the projection of that face in your mind, you are actually seeing a real image created within the mind. The image isn't the real person, but it is a real projection of the face created by spirit, light and matter. They say some great artists can clearly visualize a finished work of art before the work of creating that piece of art has even begun. Now the visualization within the mind of the artist is not the finished piece of art but it is a real visualization that actually exists as a projection within the artist's mind -- again, a real visualization created by spirit, light and matter within the brain. The visualization is real even if it isn't the finished work of art.

I have a hunch that this separating of the physical and so-called immaterial spiritual world is what persuaded the Greek influenced post-apostolic Christian church to embrace the "idea" of an immaterial God. So we have to tread very cautiously when entertaining notions that pure thought is immaterial in nature -- it is not. Pure thought or intelligence is just as real as the physical light that lights our world.

Let me see that picture you have in your mind, please. Not a copy or other likeness of it, but the one you have in your mind. Take it out for me, so I can handle it with my hands and show it to anyone else who isn't physically blind.

You can't do that, can you. Do you know why?

Edited February 4, 2014 by Ahab

[teddyaware]

I understand the example and share the same viewpoint about it. I also believe that God is an exalted Man of flesh and bone. In addition, I believe that there are immaterial principles that work in conjunction with us and with God as material beings.

Gravity is a good example. It is understood by some scientists to involve a (controversially hypothetical) particle that carries gravity or mediates its operation. That fits well with the “all things are matter” philosopy. However, the actual law the particle follows, or which the Lord follows in moving it (and which Newton and Einstein have only been able to articulate with varying degrees of accuracy), is not the particle itself. The law of gravity is the principle of action or power for the particle, and faith is the principle of action or power for the Lord.

Interesting example. Gravity cannot exist without there being mass or matter. An object floating in space of lesser mass is irresistibly drawn toward an object floating in space of greater material mass. Given that scientists admit the principle of gravitational force is still poorly understood, there is nothing to dissuade me from believing that heretofore undiscovered forces of energy are at work -- forces of just as real and substantive as matter.

 

It's tempting to think of light as immaterial but I understand some scientists recently created a new form of matter (two fused photons) out of light. Similarly, it may be tempting to think of faith as an immaterial principle of power, but faith has actual power to move mountains and therefore it must be composed of something that possesses actual power. Nothing begets nothing. The power that is inherent in faith is the power of the Spirit, and the power of living faith is one of the component parts of the Spirit.

Edited February 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Interesting example. Gravity cannot exist without there being mass or matter.

Correct. But what about the law of gravity? That exists whether there is mass or matter to act upon it or for it to act upon, or not.

 

 

It's tempting to think of light as immaterial but I understand some scientists recently created a new form of matter (two fused photons) out of light. Similarly, it may be tempting to think of faith as an immaterial principle of power, but faith has actual power to move mountains and therefore it must be composed of something that possesses actual power. Nothing begets nothing. The power that is inherent in faith is the power of the Spirit, and the power of living faith is one of the component parts of the Spirit.

I've always held that light is a form of matter.

 

Faith is a principle of power, not necessarily the power itself. This is stated repeatedly in the LDS definitons we use all the time ("faith is a principle of action and power":

https://www.lds.org/topics/faith?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-18-faith-in-jesus-christ?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/faith

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-13-faith-a-power-that-centers-in-christ?lang=eng

 

Are action (movement, work) and power (capacity, ability) forms of matter, or comprised of matter? Or are they experssed through matter under certain conditions?

 

I think power is actually inherent in the spirit, and the spirit uses faith as the principle of using that power to act.

[teddyaware]

Yes we do get the spirit/Spirit of God just by being begat by God, just not as developed as his spirit is.

It is because he has developed the spirit within him that he can do all he can do, and although we may not choose to develop our spirits as much as he has we still have the potential because we have the same spirit, or the same kind of spirit, which is the spirit of God, within us.

I don't know how I can say it any plainer than that.

Our spirit cannot develop along its divinely appointed lines without additional outpourings of spiritual power and enlightenment beyond that which we possess on our own. In order to properly nourish and empower our spiritual self to become what God meant for us to be, we need more spiritual power than just that provided by our pre-existent spirit housed in a fallen earthly body. And as you well know, unless we receive and internalize a fullness of the gift and power of the Holy Ghost there is no possibility of obtaining eternal life.

I'm quite sure you're well aware of this principle, so I can't imagine where the disagreement lies. I easily understand your point that we are spiritual children of God with a noble heritage and a glorious, divine destiny. But why is it you can't seem to understand we need to internalize empowerment from the Spirit of God, a source of pure and holy spiritual power that exists outside of ourselves, before we can achieve our divine destiny? I'm hoping this is just a simple misunderstanding because I can't imagine you're unaware of these basic and very well known Gospel priciples.

Edited February 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Let me see that picture you have in your mind, please. Not a copy or other likeness of it, but the one you have in your mind. Take it out for me, so I can handle it with my hands and show it to anyone else who isn't physically blind.

You can't do that, can you. Do you know why?

We are not usually allowed to look into each other's minds that way, except for the Prophet Daniel who was given the spiritual gift to look inside the mind Nebuchadnezzar and tell him all a about his dream in detail. There may be other examples from the scriptures.

But listening to and viewing our thoughts is something God does all the time. See for yourself...

... open ye your ears and hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, whose word is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow, soul and spirit; and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (D&C 33:1)

And again:

22 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.

23 Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?

24 And now, behold, you have received a witness; for if I have told you things which no man knoweth have you not received a witness? (D&C 6)

Edited February 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

Correct. But what about the law of gravity? That exists whether there is mass or matter to act upon it or for it to act upon, or not.

 

 

I've always held that light is a form of matter.

 

Faith is a principle of power, not necessarily the power itself. This is stated repeatedly in the LDS definitons we use all the time ("faith is a principle of action and power":

https://www.lds.org/topics/faith?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-18-faith-in-jesus-christ?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/faith

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/chapter-13-faith-a-power-that-centers-in-christ?lang=eng

 

Are action (movement, work) and power (capacity, ability) forms of matter, or comprised of matter? Or are they experssed through matter under certain conditions?

 

I think power is actually inherent in the spirit, and the spirit uses faith as the principle of using that power to act.

Good points. I think we can get to the heart of this discussion rather quickly by focusing on the following point:

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.

 

I believe what these verses might be saying is that:

 

1 Intelligence = the light of truth = the spirit of truth

 

2  Truth (something you, CV75, might call an immaterial abstraction) actually exists as an entity and has a life of its own. It can be placed within a particular kingdom of law and it is so real and substantive that it can function independently and make its own decisions.

 

3 Pure intelligence, though a very basic form of life,  is an entity that, like truth, can act independently and make its own decisions.

 

4 Without the basic living and active realities known as truth and intelligence there would be no existence. So, apparently, truth and intelligence are the building blocks of reality and are, therefore, just as real and substantive as gross matter; and this because all other forms of matter are compounds of either or both of these.

 

6 Matter can only be as real as its fundamental building blocks. So if truth and intelligence is immaterial, then whatever is made out of these is ultimately immaterial. If truth and intelligence are material and tangible, then whatever is made out of these will also be material and tangible.

 

I know this is mind blowing stuff, but remember, I'm just the messenger.

Edited February 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

I come to this conclusion because:

 

A.  Joseph Smith taught that spirit is finer and purer than the gross matter we are accustomed to here on earth.

7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter. (D&C 131)

 

B. Even though spirit matter is finer and purer than gross matter, not all spirit matter is as holy, pure and unalloyed as the Spirit of God. Satan is made of spirit and yet he is the epitome of all that is evil, hateful and spiritually destructive -- he is an evil spirit. Just because something is made of spirit doesn't automatically mean the spirit matter of that thing is equal in holiness to the Spirit of God. Meanwhile, this is what we read about the nature of the Spirit of God:

61 Therefore it is given to abide in 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. (Moses 6)

Now this Spirit (described above) is the diametric opposite to the Spirit of the devil, in accord with the law of opposition in all things. Therefore I conclude that the Spirit of God is the most holy, pure and unalloyed of all spirit matter because God is the holiest and purest of all beings. It would only stand to reason, then, that His most powerful ministering spiritual instrument of salvation and exaltation would be as pure and holy as He is.

In other words, because you have a testimony that Joseph was a prophet, and you interpret his words to say those things.

 

Works for me, but I just wanted to point out the root point of all the theorizing.  Notice it is not based on observation, not based on science as it is now constituted, not based on persona experience other than that experience which told you Joseph was a prophet.

 

I am not denigrating your experience one iota- I agree with you.  My point was just to show that what you are saying is essentially your interpretation of what you regard as scripture- the words of Joseph. 

 

That's fine, but realize that others may interpret his words differently.  As I said, I agree with your direction, I just don't think all the metaphysical language helps any.  I will stick with what Joseph actually said- or at least what I think he said, which would be my interpretation of his words.

[mfbukowski]

That is right—matter and non-matter are two separate things (there is no material non-matter either), no matter how far I take my examples into the “everything is matter” camp!

So Plato sneaks in the back door, and takes up residence in the master bedroom.

[mfbukowski]

I would say that the meaning behind the tangible speech and print, or even behind the neurochemical processes underlying and using them, is not tangible but is still "chair" and so forth, which is clearly tangible. Again, this takes nothing away from the material composition of anything, just that there is a non-material component also in operation.

yep.  definitely the master bedroom.

[teddyaware]

In other words, because you have a testimony that Joseph was a prophet, and you interpret his words to say those things.

 

Works for me, but I just wanted to point out the root point of all the theorizing.  Notice it is not based on observation, not based on science as it is now constituted, not based on persona experience other than that experience which told you Joseph was a prophet.

 

I am not denigrating your experience one iota- I agree with you.  My point was just to show that what you are saying is essentially your interpretation of what you regard as scripture- the words of Joseph. 

 

That's fine, but realize that others may interpret his words differently.  As I said, I agree with your direction, I just don't think all the metaphysical language helps any.  I will stick with what Joseph actually said- or at least what I think he said, which would be my interpretation of his words.

Love it! But remember, one day the Great Scientist is going to reveal for all to see which knucklehead got it right and which knucklehead got it wrong (knucklehead = fallen man)

[mfbukowski]

It saddens me that we take this verse:

 

"There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter" (D&C 131:7-8).

 

And totally ignore the last four words to conclude that there ARE still "immaterial things".

 

I see that as a gross misunderstanding of the meaning, and in fact a denial of what makes Mormonism unique.

 

Let's just go back to transubstantiation- after all THAT is what it is all about.   If there exists "something" immaterial, transubstantiation makes perfect sense.  If nothing "immaterial" exists, then transubstantiation does not make sense.

 

Take your pick.

 

How many immaterial angels can occupy the head of a pin?   How many emotions can occupy the head of a pin?

 

Newsflash:  Mormons are materialists.http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

Edited February 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So if testimony is emotion and emotion is immaterial then we will not have testimonies in the eternities

 

It is significant that the teachings of the restored gospel on the eternal nature of physical matter, along with a parallel in the spiritual realm, embody these conservation principles. These are key statements: "The elements are eternal" (D&C 93:33). "The spirit of man is not a created being; it existed from eternity, and will exist to eternity. Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity" (Joseph Smith, in HC 3:387).

 

Anything created cannot be eternal.  So what is a testimony then?

 

SO HOW DOES GOD CRY FOR HIS CHILDREN if emotion is immaterial and therefore not eternal?

 

Emotion is obviously a physical interaction.  Call it spirit matter if you like- I have no problem with that.  As long as you can take a pill for depression, emotion is obviously physical.

 

"Attributes" are linguistic logical tools and are as physical as your ability to speak is.  Why can't stroke victims sometimes speak?  Is there a problem with something "immaterial"?  Can you see how ridiculous this all becomes?

Edited February 4, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Love it! But remember, one day the Great Scientist is going to reveal for all to see which knucklehead got it right and which knucklehead got it wrong (knucklehead = fallen man)

I do not disagree with you at all unless you think that "attributes are immaterial".  Our disagreement insofar as there is one is purely semantic.  I would just say things differently than you do that's all.

[mfbukowski]

Let me see that picture you have in your mind, please. Not a copy or other likeness of it, but the one you have in your mind. Take it out for me, so I can handle it with my hands and show it to anyone else who isn't physically blind.

You can't do that, can you. Do you know why?

I am going to answer this excellent question, not for Ahab, but for anyone else who might read this later who is acquainted with Thomas Nagel.

 

In his famous essay "What is it like to be a Bat?" he answered it perfectly

 

 

"If physicalism is to be defended, the phenomenological features must themselves be given a physical account. But when we examine their subjective character it seems that such a result is impossible. The reason is that every subjective phenomenon is essentially connected with a single point of view, and it seems inevitable that an objective, physical theory will abandon that point of view." - Thomas Nagel, What Is It Like To Be a Bat?

 

Essentially the answer is:

 

"I cannot take it out of my head NOT BECAUSE IT IS NOT PHYSICAL but because I am seeing the picture from a different point of view than you can see it.  You cannot be inside my head to see my thoughts"

 

Are the pyramids square?

 

Yes!

 

We don't usually see them typically as square because we typically do not view them from directly above, but if we do, the statement "The pyramids are square" would be true.

 

OUR PERSPECTIVE AND CONTEXT IS WHAT CREATES MEANING, it is not "out there" somehow in immaterial form.

 

When we look "inside our own heads" we see things others cannot see.  We are seeing SUBJECTIVELY.  That does not make what we see "immaterial"- it is just reflects a different point of view, or context.

 

Whether or not something is "yellow" depends on the lighting.  At night, yellow looks white.  It is a different point of view due to lighting conditions.  It's all context!

 

I am sure Ahab will take exception to this since that is what he does, but as I said this is for others who might have the same question- which is an excellent question.

[teddyaware]

I do not disagree with you at all unless you think that "attributes are immaterial".  Our disagreement insofar as there is one is purely semantic.  I would just say things differently than you do that's all.

I've tried very hard (especially in my post #111) to show that I do not think attributes are immaterial. I can understand how somebody might believe it, but I most emphatically do not. I am reminded of a line from an old progressive rock song: "Truth is real. Truth is real. That which is not real does not exist."

Edited February 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Yes, just as emotions of love and faith are immaterial and cannot be seen they too have material manifestations when material beings have and act on those emotions.

How does this work?  Do they float around waiting to manifest themselves?

[Ahab]

Our spirit cannot develop along its divinely appointed lines without additional outpourings of spiritual power and enlightenment beyond that which we possess on our own. In order to properly nourish and empower our spiritual self to become what God meant for us to be, we need more spiritual power than just that provided by our pre-existent spirit housed in a fallen earthly body. And as you well know, unless we receive and internalize a fullness of the gift and power of the Holy Ghost there is no possibility of obtaining eternal life.

I'm quite sure you're well aware of this principle, so I can't imagine where the disagreement lies. I easily understand your point that we are spiritual children of God with a noble heritage and a glorious, divine destiny. But why is it you can't seem to understand we need to internalize empowerment from the Spirit of God, a source of pure and holy spiritual power that exists outside of ourselves, before we can achieve our divine destiny? I'm hoping this is just a simple misunderstanding because I can't imagine you're unaware of these basic and very well known Gospel priciples.

I understand all of that but none of it negates the fact that our spirit and the spirit of God are the same kind of spirit. Our Father is just helping us to become more developed like he is.

[teddyaware]

I understand all of that but none of it negates the fact that our spirit and the spirit of God are the same kind of spirit. Our Father is just helping us to become more developed like he is.

So we agree! Thank goodness! All the best to you, Ahab.

[Ahab]

We are not usually allowed to look into each other's minds that way, except for the Prophet Daniel who was given the spiritual gift to look inside the mind Nebuchadnezzar and tell him all a about his dream in detail. There may be other examples from the scriptures.

But listening to and viewing our thoughts is something God does all the time. See for yourself...

... open ye your ears and hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, whose word is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of the joints and marrow, soul and spirit; and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (D&C 33:1)

And again:

22 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.

23 Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?

24 And now, behold, you have received a witness; for if I have told you things which no man knoweth have you not received a witness? (D&C 6)

NY

My point was that there are some things that are not composed of matter or material substance, like emotions and thoughts and those pictures you see in your mind. Like a Star Trek or Star Wars universe, fiction and imagination are not reality.

[Ahab]

I am going to answer this excellent question, not for Ahab, but for anyone else who might read this later who is acquainted with Thomas Nagel.

In his famous essay "What is it like to be a Bat?" he answered it perfectly

Essentially the answer is:

"I cannot take it out of my head NOT BECAUSE IT IS NOT PHYSICAL but because I am seeing the picture from a different point of view than you can see it. You cannot be inside my head to see my thoughts"

Are the pyramids square?

Yes!

We don't usually see them typically as square because we typically do not view them from directly above, but if we do, the statement "The pyramids are square" would be true.

OUR PERSPECTIVE AND CONTEXT IS WHAT CREATES MEANING, it is not "out there" somehow in immaterial form.

When we look "inside our own heads" we see things others cannot see. We are seeing SUBJECTIVELY. That does not make what we see "immaterial"- it is just reflects a different point of view, or context.

Whether or not something is "yellow" depends on the lighting. At night, yellow looks white. It is a different point of view due to lighting conditions. It's all context!

I am sure Ahab will take exception to this since that is what he does, but as I said this is for others who might have the same question- which is an excellent question.

Me looking at my wife, who I love, is a subjective experience, but it is at least possible for every other material person who is not physically blind to see my wife.

Now try saying that about any image someone claims to see in their mind when imagining someone they love when seeing an image of that person in only their own mind. An image nobody else, but God, can see since that image can not be extracted from the mind of the person who claims to see that person. We can't even know if someone is actually seeing a person they claim to love in their mind, or if they are really experiencing love. For all we know, without God to help us see what is really going on in reality, someone could be fantasizing about a fictitous person.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Ahab