The Nature Of The Holy Spirit

[Ahab]

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

Back atcha, bro. I love you.

[CV75]

yep.  definitely the master bedroom.

I don’t disagree with anything in the article you linked in #116, and have used the same ideas in my posts to clarify my position. This article is similar: https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/pearl-great-price-revelations-god/12-history-intelligence-latter-day-saint-thought

 

This expression is very interesting: “eternity is inscribed in indelible characters on every particle”. It doesn’t mention that eternity is also inscribed on what I consider to be “non-particulate” things such as agency, faith, etc. I do not hold these to be created, either, and that they are just as eternal (eternal principles).

 

Joseph Smith’s revelations are confirmed by the Spirit so I can empathize with the zeal to take them a step further and use “strict analogy” to things other than spiritual matter or elements, such as principles and laws. But these articles do not really do that or support that, and I don't think the revelations do, either.

 

I think I’ve been clear about agency, faith, and other principles of righteousness being subordinate to their users, all of whom are spirit/element matter with agency.

[mfbukowski]

Well if anyone really cares, I think Thomas Nagel hits it perfectly, and this is not a bad summary of it all.  The article is not a difficult read but long and not for the faint hearted.  It is all a bit more complicated than I let on here, for the sake of brevity.

 

I am convinced this guy is right- and this article goes to the crux of this question if you really want to understand it.  But there is one caveat: the "materialism" Nagel is discussing is what we would call "scientism" here.

 

He is not talking about "Mormon materialism" - the unscientific belief (so far) that spirit itself has a physical basis.  Really this is more an article against the view that all can be known through the scientific method.  Like Nagel, we would believe that might be possible for "true science" but not "present science".  So understand the terminology before you see this as a condemnation of the Mormon brand of "materialism"- it is not.   In fact it can be seen as an endorsement of the Mormon position- with the understanding that Nagel would never conceive that spirit could have a physical base.

 

His arguments are more logical arguments speaking about the scientific perspective.

http://www.sott.net/article/260160-The-Heretic-Who-is-Thomas-Nagel-and-why-are-so-many-of-his-fellow-academics-condemning-him

 

And the article ends with this quote of Nagel- which is remarkably close to the Mormon position, yet without being theistic:

 

The positive mission Nagel undertakes in Mind and Cosmos is to outline, cautiously, a possible Third Way between theism and materialism, given that the first is unacceptable - emotionally, if not intellectually - and the second is untenable. Perhaps matter itself has a bias toward producing conscious creatures. Nature in that case would be "teleological" - not random, not fully subject to chance, but tending toward a particular end. Our mental life would be accounted for - phew! - without reference to God.

I find his position so compelling because here is a man who does not want to be a theist- and yet has discovered the "Mormon position" - or something close- by reason alone, yet without testimony.

THAT to me is compelling

Edited February 5, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

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

Oh no.

Could it be then that I also actually agree with Ahab??

Actually I did agree with a lot of his posts but he kept on attacking everything I agreed with when I said it, so I quit reading them. 

[teddyaware]

Well if anyone really cares, I think Thomas Nagel hits it perfectly, and this is not a bad summary of it all.  The article is not a difficult read but long and not for the faint hearted.  It is all a bit more complicated than I let on here, for the sake of brevity.

 

I am convinced this guy is right- and this article goes to the crux of this question if you really want to understand it.  But there is one caveat: the "materialism" Nagel is discussing is what we would call "scientism" here.

 

He is not talking about "Mormon materialism" - the unscientific belief (so far) that spirit itself has a physical basis.  Really this is more an article against the view that all can be known through the scientific method.  Like Nagel, we would believe that might be possible for "true science" but not "present science".  So understand the terminology before you see this as a condemnation of the Mormon brand of "materialism"- it is not.   In fact it can be seen as an endorsement of the Mormon position- with the understanding that Nagel would never conceive that spirit could have a physical base.

 

His arguments are more logical arguments speaking about the scientific perspective.

http://www.sott.net/article/260160-The-Heretic-Who-is-Thomas-Nagel-and-why-are-so-many-of-his-fellow-academics-condemning-him

 

And the article ends with this quote of Nagel- which is remarkably close to the Mormon position, yet without being theistic:

 

I find his position so compelling because here is a man who does not want to be a theist- and yet has discovered the "Mormon position" - or something close- by reason alone, yet without testimony.

THAT to me is compelling

I read the article and enjoyed it much, But I came away with three strong impressions:

 

The first is that these elite Neo-Darwinists are a depressing, soulless lot, something closely akin to zombies with an intellectual bent. I honestly wouldn't allow one of my grandchildren to be babysat by one of these people for even one hour. Theirs is the kind of nihilist thinking that allowed the world's great mass murderers to callously  justify their unspeakable atrocities with nary a second thought.

 

Second, if I were a Latter-day Saint who believed in organic evolution, I would find it distasteful and embarrassing in the extreme to be even remotely identified with such people. One wonders what kind of emotional and psychological spirit occupies their minds. They're so supremely arrogant that they're not happy unless 100% of their fellow intellectuals and scientists agree life is utterly futile, illusory and meaningless. And if one dares step out of line, they'll mercilessly set out to defame and then destroy the career of anyone who does. To me they inhabit a nightmare world that leaves the hungering and yearning soul in a desert wasteland of utter despair. And yet in their own way they seem to perversely enjoy the emptiness and meaninglessness of it all. If I was doubtful about organic evolution before, I am even more so now. The Lord said "by their fruits ye shall know them," and it seems unlikely to me the Lord would inspire and entrust such people with His sacred truth.

 

Third, Nagel will never find his third way unless he's a least willing to admit there's a chance there might be a wise creator at the helm of existence.

Edited February 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

I read the article and enjoyed it much, But I came away with three strong impressions:

 

The first is that these elite Neo-Darwinists are a depressing, soulless lot, something closely akin to zombies with an intellectual bent. I honestly wouldn't allow one of my grandchildren to be babysat by one of these people for even one hour. Theirs is the kind of nihilist thinking that allowed the world's great mass murderers to callously  justify their unspeakable atrocities with nary a second thought.

 

Second, if I were a Latter-day Saint who believed in organic evolution, I would find it distasteful and embarrassing in the extreme to be even remotely identified with such people. One wonders what kind of emotional and psychological spirit occupies their minds. They're so supremely arrogant that they're  not happy unless 100% of their fellow intellectuals and scientists agree life is utterly futile, illusory and meaningless. And if one dares step out of line, they'll mercilessly set out to defame and then destroy the career of anyone who does. To me they inhabit a nightmare world that leaves the hungering and yearning soul in a desert wasteland of utter despair. And yet in their own way they seem to perversely enjoy the emptiness and meaninglessness of it all. If I was doubtful about organic evolution before, I am even more so now. The Lord said "by their fruits ye shall know them," and it seems unlikely to me the Lord would inspire and entrust such people with His sacred truth.

 

Third, Nagel will never find his third way unless he's a least willing to admit there's a chance there might be a wise creator at the helm of existence.

Well I agree with you, but I just see them as mistaken, not evil.  And I think evolution is the best explanation science can come up with considering the corner it has painted itself into.

 

I just see these all as paradigms with none of them getting the full picture because God's not done with it yet because we are part of it.

[teddyaware]

Well I agree with you, but I just see them as mistaken, not evil.  And I think evolution is the best explanation science can come up with considering the corner it has painted itself into.

 

I just see these all as paradigms with none of them getting the full picture because God's not done with it yet because we are part of it.

"I agree they are not proactively evil but just under a spell, if you will, brought on by beliefs that cannot help but sap faith, hope, and charity from the human heart and mind. In spite of his atheism and purely naturalistic outlook, Nagel feels the impulses and strivings of the light of Christ within and seems to give at least some place for the possibility that there may be a some sort of miraculous component to life. He seems to entertain at least some sense of reverence for the miracle of existence, but because he seeks to acquire knowledge from a purely scientific approach that yields no room for faith, he's caught between the proverbial rock and hard place, looking for a third way; a third way that will not totally alienate him from his bleak, slavishly scientific brethren, while at the same time allow for the embracing of the pure joy found in a creation that seems to beg for the presence of wise creator and a noble ultimate cause and purpose for it all.

I can understand Nagel's conundrum. When I was an atheistic naturalist, I often wondered about the seeming impossibility of how one, such as I, could ever be moved from my atheistic universal view to a belief in a loving and wise God. My journey to faith began much as Nagel's attempt to find a third way because the sheer miraculousness of life and the existence of the universe just seemed too much to assume to be something purely accidental and unintentional. Add to this the intense love and innate sense of purposefulness I was exposed to in my immediate and extended family, as I was growing up, and I just couldn't shake the possibility that something (or someone) grand and wonderful was sweetly smiling behind the scenes.

Scientists use the five empirical senses, logic, scientific instrumentation and experiments to discover the nature of reality and how things work. The innate whisperings of the light of Christ are tugging at the mind and heartstrings of Professor Nagel and he just doesn't know what to do about it. So he walks in perplexity as he begins to know there's a deeper and more meaningful reality waiting just outside an unlocked door he's too cautious, afraid or ashamed to open.

One day, either here or in the spirit world, Professor Nagel is going to discover there are other scientific methodologies for the discovery of truth that exist beyond what the arrogant and entrenched protectors of scientific orthodoxy will allow. Faith is as real and as introspective as a microscope; hope is as real and as revelatory as a telescope, and pure love is as real and enlightening as all the instruments of science taken in totality. Learning to not ignore but follow the deepest and most noble yearnings of the human heart as it searches for meaning, direction and love is not a sign of weakness, but is rather evidence of true wisdom and a higher rationality. Thomas Nagel would do well to heed the inspired counsel of Alma:

26 Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge.

27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words. (Alma 32)

Edited February 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[Bikeemikey]

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.

Your strict materialism may run into some issues with this idea:

For example, if truth exists as matter in and of itself, rather than as a descriptor of the form of matter, then we run into a logical conundrum.

As all thing have there opposite (a point you have articulated strictly as part of your proof for extreme materialism) it would hold that falsity is also materially incarnate and actually exists as an independent material substance. However, as falsity is partially defined by its non-existence (purple elephants are false as the do not exist) it is logically incongruent to argue that falsity has material existence. That would require falsity to have a very different meaning from how we currently use it.

I think you are confusing material existence and the description of material existence through language. For example: yellow is a color. It exists as a material reality and is produced by a specific wave length of light touching the human eye. However, that wave length of light is not yellow, it is simply the case that the wavelength of light is commonly described or called yellow in human language.

The wavelength of light that we call yellow exists regardless of the human language descriptor yellow.

Likewise I believe that truth and falsity are human language constructs to describe the world In which we live. Truth is not a materially incarnate thing, rather it is a "concept" that describes ideas that are closely reflective of the material reality. Likewise falsity if the opposite.

This reflects our current usage of these words and does not undermine or contradict your materialism.

Language is both material and immaterial. The word purple elephant is made up of material; that is atoms fire in my brain and my muscles move and my mouth makes material move put of my mouth in a way that people hear what I say... However, none of that material is a purple elephant. We are able to use our human material (bodies) to express immaterial concepts via language.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

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.

I am in agreement with you on this... A materialist universe does not all of a sudden create a totally uniform and extra-context environment. (An environment where context is not an inherently essential part of experience.)

Material has context and thus experience being context dependent is still full of interpretation. Language is the vehicle for the expression of such context or interpretation based expression. As such language attempts to express the portion of material interaction that is totally unknowable from outside the interaction itself. That part of the interaction, while made of material is also extra-materialistic.

[teddyaware]

Your strict materialism may run into some issues with this idea: For example, if truth exists as matter in and of itself, rather than as a descriptor of the form of matter, then we run into a logical conundrum. As all thing have there opposite (a point you have articulated strictly as part of your proof for extreme materialism) it would hold that falsity is also materially incarnate and actually exists as an independent material substance. However, as falsity is partially defined by its non-existence (purple elephants are false as the do not exist) it is logically incongruent to argue that falsity has material existence. That would require falsity to have a very different meaning from how we currently use it. I think you are confusing material existence and the description of material existence through language. For example: yellow is a color. It exists as a material reality and is produced by a specific wave length of light touching the human eye. However, that wave length of light is not yellow, it is simply the case that the wavelength of light is commonly described or called yellow in human language. The wavelength of light that we call yellow exists regardless of the human language descriptor yellow. Likewise I believe that truth and falsity are human language constructs to describe the world In which we live. Truth is not a materially incarnate thing, rather it is a "concept" that describes ideas that are closely reflective of the material reality. Likewise falsity if the opposite. This reflects our current usage of these words and does not undermine of contradict your materialism. Language is both material and immaterial. The word purple elephant is made up of material; that is atoms fire in my brain and my muscles move and my mouth makes material move put of my mouth in a way that people hear what I say... However, none of that material is a purple elephant. We are able to use our human material (bodies) to express immaterial concepts via language.

The concepts are never immaterial because they can only exist within the material or spiritual mind. The mind can imagine that the principle exists out of the mind, but even that imaging or visualization takes place within the mind as its the only place it can actually exist. Imaging some truth or principle is floating immaterially out in space outside of one's body does not mean that the principle is actually floating immaterially out in space -- the visualization of this is happening in the mind as it's the only place it can actually exist. Immaterial "things" don't actually exist. The things that exist within the mind are composed of matter, spirit (still something material), and light.

 

As to my assertion about nature of truth, It's taken straight from the Doctrine and Covenants:

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. (D&C 93)

My opinion is informed by the fact that uncreated truth can be placed as a presence within a sphere of existence and when placed there it can act for itself independently. My question is how can something immaterial (something that does not actually exist) and without a mind of its own be independent "to act for itself?"

Edited February 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[Bikeemikey]

The concepts are never immaterial because they can only exist within the material or spiritual mind. The mind can imagine that the principle exists out of the mind, but even that imaging or visualization takes place within the mind as its the only place it can actually exist. Imaging some truth or principle is floating immaterially out in space outside of one's body does not mean that the principle is actually floating immaterially out in space -- the visualization of this is happening in the mind as it's the only place it can actually exist. Immaterial "things" don't actually exist. The things that exist within the mind are composed of matter, spirit (still something material), and light.

As to my assertion about nature of truth, It's taken straight from the Doctrine and Covenants:

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. (D&C 93)

My opinion is informed by the fact that uncreated truth can be placed as a presence within a sphere of existence and when placed there it can act for itself independently. My question is how can something immaterial (something that does not actually exist) and without a mind of its own be independent "to act for itself?"

I agree that all things are material. Concepts and thoughts included. I even agree that truth is material in as much as it it manifests in the material mind.

However, if, as you are claiming, truth is a material thing that exists outside our mind you need to address whether our experience of it occurs outside our mind. I am assuming that you believe the experience of materialistic truth happens within our mind.

Now the next question is how? Does this material truth physically enter our mind and replace our previous materialistic processes of awareness (that is replace our previous electrical impulses and chemical reactions with a new and improved "truth" process? Or do we see "truth" in the same way we see other material?

The fact that truth exists outside as a material reality (something in not sure I agree with) does not change the fact that every material mind will still experience it from its own material context and thus will still be different for every mind.

Such a truth is still highly relative. It is still subject to the "your truth is not my truth" in the same way that "your yellow is not my yellow". So how does its existence as an objective material truth in the universe matter if we can only subjectively experience in our unique and context dependent material mind?

[mfbukowski]

Truth is a property of sentences, nothing more.

 

Either the sentence expresses something useful in action or it doesn't.  If you can rely on the sentence and derive something useful from it it is true.

That is how it is independent- it must have context, and it acts for itself because its usefulness is always connected to an action.

 

The Godhead always acts wit purpose, and purpose is what unifies them

Edited February 5, 2014 by mfbukowski

[teddyaware]

I agree that all things are material. Concepts and thoughts included. I even agree that truth is material in as much as it it manifests in the material mind. However, if, as you are claiming, truth is a material thing that exists outside our mind you need to address whether our experience of it occurs outside our mind. I am assuming that you believe the experience of materialistic truth happens within our mind. Now the next question is how? Does this material truth physically enter our mind and replace our previous materialistic processes of awareness (that is replace our previous electrical impulses and chemical reactions with a new and improved "truth" process? Or do we see "truth" in the same way we see other material? The fact that truth exists outside as a material reality (something in not sure I agree with) does not change the fact that every material mind will still experience it from its own material context and thus will still be different for every mind. Such a truth is still highly relative. It is still subject to the "your truth is not my truth" in the same way that "your yellow is not my yellow". So how does its existence as an objective material truth in the universe matter if we can only subjectively experience in our unique and context dependent material mind?

Your point is valid and needs a thoughtful response. Let me quote from D&C 93 once again:

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. (D&C 93)

 

Believe it or not, I believe verse 29 gives us a hint as to what intelligence actually is. See how "intelligence" is equated with the expression "light of truth." So I'll take the leap and suggest that at its essence intelligence is an uncreated awareness, but an uncreated awareness of what?  The same verse allows us to be more specific by asserting intelligence is an uncreated awareness of truth. So now we'll move on from here by first quoting from the Book of Abraham:

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am amore intelligent than they all. (Abraham 3)

 

So the Lord informs us that spirits are (most likely) made of at least one of the two most basic materials of existence, that being uncreated intelligence. But He goes on to say that while spirits have an inherent ability to be aware of truth and understand its workings, nevertheless, the spirits are not all equal in their ability to understand truth. There is a natural disparity of intelligence amongst God's family of preexistent spirit children, just as we see the same principle of disparity demonstrated in mortality here on earth. Therefore, there is a disparity of ability among spirits to understand truth. This accounts for our own particular individualized perceptions and understandings of truth. This is why we are individuals and, as we all know, individualism plays a major role in a purposeful life.

 

But there is one organized intelligence who fully understands truth in all it complexities, categories, facets and nuances of glory, and that is God Himself. In fact, the intelligence of God understands the truth so perfectly that He is the very embodiment of all truth (I am the Spirit of Truth). Therefore we may extrapolate that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is an inspired program, conceived by a perfect mind (or intelligence), to enable intelligences of lower degree to become as perfectly intelligent as God is. Hence we read:

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;

Edited February 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Your point is valid and needs a thoughtful response. Let me quote from D&C 93 once again:

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. (D&C 93)

 

Believe it or not, I believe verse 29 gives us a hint as to what intelligence actually is. See how "intelligence" is equated with the expression "light of truth." So I'll take the leap and suggest that at its essence intelligence is an uncreated awareness, but an uncreated awareness of what?  The same verse allows us to be more specific by asserting intelligence is an uncreated awareness of truth. So now we'll move on from here by first quoting from the Book of Abraham:

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal.

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am amore intelligent than they all. (Abraham 3)

 

So the Lord informs us that spirits are (most likely) made of at least one of the two most basic materials of existence, that being uncreated intelligence. But He goes on to say that while spirits have an inherent ability to be aware of truth and understand its workings, nevertheless, the spirits are not all equal in there ability to understand truth. There is a natural disparity of intelligence amongst God's family of preexistent spirit children, just as we see the same principle of disparity demonstrated in mortality here on earth. Therefore, there is a disparity of ability among spirits to understand truth. This accounts for our own particular individualized perceptions and understandings of truth. This is why we are individuals and, as we all know, individualism plays a major role in a purposeful life.

 

But there is one organized intelligence who fully understands truth in all it complexities, categories, facets and nuances of glory, and that is God Himself. In fact, the intelligence of God understands the truth so perfectly that He is the very embodiment of all truth (I am the Spirit of Truth). Therefore we may extrapolate that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is an inspired program, conceived by a perfect mind (or intelligence), to enable intelligences of lower degree to become as perfectly intelligent as Gos is. Hence we read:

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;

Yep.

 

That's the way I see it too.

[mfbukowski]

We create our little worlds relative to our own understanding while God organizes the big one we all share.

 

By organizing our little worlds we are practicing to organize a big one when we grow up, if we make it that far.

Edited February 5, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Our little truths which work for us individually fit into the bigger truths God gave us which always work, like gravity and the golden rule.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't feel I have any disagreement with the last couple of posts.

[teddyaware]

We create our little worlds relative to our own understanding while God organizes the big one we all share.

 

By organizing our little worlds we are practicing to organize a big one when we grow up, if we make it that far.

21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord. (Matthew 25)

Edited February 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

I don't feel I have any disagreement with the last couple of posts.

I'm joyfully basking in all the goodwill and agreement. But when's the next shoe gonna drop? 

[Bikeemikey]

I'm joyfully basking in all the goodwill and agreement. But when's the next shoe gonna drop?

I wear slippers this time of year ;-)

[teddyaware]

I wear slippers this time of year ;-)

LOL! So I guess it will come as a sneak attack.

[CV75]

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

 

Sorry I missed this post yesterday! RE: point 1, I don’t see where these verses (D&C 93:29-30) use this equation, so it focuses outside the point. Elsewhere in D&C 93, “the Spirit of truth [capital “S”]” is Christ Himself (verses 9, 26), the “Word [capital “W”], the messenger of salvation, the light and Redeemer of the world” (verses 8-9), and “the Only Begotten of the Father” (verse 11). This equation would be: “Christ = the Spirit of truth = light,” whether one takes that figuratively or literally. Nowhere does it say “the light of truth” = “the Spirit of truth.”

Verse 23 is interesting because “the Spirit of truth” is also the Father.

Verse 36 does fit into your equation: “Intelligence = the light of truth = the glory of God = light and truth.” The term “light and truth” are used in several verses from then on, indicating that while they are closely associated, they are not the same thing.

So we really have to look at “light [Christ/Spirit of truth],” “light of truth” and “light and truth” in relation to intelligence and in relation to the “light of Christ” as brought up in sections 84 and 88.

My main point is that your formula is not what the verses indicate, and bringing what other scriptures actually say into it doesn’t fortify your conclusion.

While I agree with points 3-6 as they relate to matter, I think your formula and these points overlook those aspects which are not material.

 

 

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.

RE: point 2, Truth exists as Christ; and He is certainly not an immaterial abstraction. But the principles of truth do not always take the form of matter, which your formula and points 3-6 overlook. Christ is truth personified, love personified, the way personified, life, light, holiness, etc. all personified. To personify means to represent a quality or concept materially in human form. If these things existed as the uncreated matter that we are, they would already be people. But since they are uncreated non-matter, they are personified, or represented in the Word. Since both are uncreated and co-exist, they are the compound in one that we are—but your paradigm overlooks half the compound.

 

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

I agree that pure intelligence can exist as a very basic form of life, just as it exists as a very highly ordered form of life like God Himself. It also exists as a principle. 

 

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.

Yes, there would be no existence without truth or intelligence (or agency); further, there never was a time when there was no existence since truth and intelligence are uncreated, whether in their material forms or not. That which is not of matter (as pure and fine as matter can possibly be) is no less real.

 

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 think this goes without saying—but I see no scriptural basis for equating “material” with “real” or assume that all the scriptures speak of truth and intelligence in their material forms.

(What happened to point "5"?)

[mfbukowski]

I don't feel I have any disagreement with the last couple of posts.

YAY!

 

We must all be Mormons or something. 

[CV75]

uncreated intelligence

 

I see no scriptural basis for equating our being uncreated intelligence with there being no immaterial forms of anyhting else associated with us, that we personify, and so forth.

[mfbukowski]

 

Sorry I missed this post yesterday! RE: point 1, I don’t see where these verses (D&C 93:29-30) use this equation, so it focuses outside the point. Elsewhere in D&C 93, “the Spirit of truth [capital “S”]” is Christ Himself (verses 9, 26), the “Word [capital “W”], the messenger of salvation, the light and Redeemer of the world” (verses 8-9), and “the Only Begotten of the Father” (verse 11). This equation would be: “Christ = the Spirit of truth = light,” whether one takes that figuratively or literally. Nowhere does it say “the light of truth” = “the Spirit of truth.”

Verse 23 is interesting because “the Spirit of truth” is also the Father.

Verse 36 does fit into your equation: “Intelligence = the light of truth = the glory of God = light and truth.” The term “light and truth” are used in several verses from then on, indicating that while they are closely associated, they are not the same thing.

So we really have to look at “light [Christ/Spirit of truth],” “light of truth” and “light and truth” in relation to intelligence and in relation to the “light of Christ” as brought up in sections 84 and 88.

My main point is that your formula is not what the verses indicate, and bringing what other scriptures actually say into it doesn’t fortify your conclusion.

While I agree with points 3-6 as they relate to matter, I think your formula and these points overlook those aspects which are not material.

 

 

RE: point 2, Truth exists as Christ; and He is certainly not an immaterial abstraction. But the principles of truth do not always take the form of matter, which your formula and points 3-6 overlook. Christ is truth personified, love personified, the way personified, life, light, holiness, etc. all personified. To personify means to represent a quality or concept materially in human form. If these things existed as the uncreated matter that we are, they would already be people. But since they are uncreated non-matter, they are personified, or represented in the Word. Since both are uncreated and co-exist, they are the compound in one that we are—but your paradigm overlooks half the compound.

 

I agree that pure intelligence can exist as a very basic form of life, just as it exists as a very highly ordered form of life like God Himself. It also exists as a principle. 

 

Yes, there would be no existence without truth or intelligence (or agency); further, there never was a time when there was no existence since truth and intelligence are uncreated, whether in their material forms or not. That which is not of matter (as pure and fine as matter can possibly be) is no less real.

 

I think this goes without saying—but I see no scriptural basis for equating “material” with “real” or assume that all the scriptures speak of truth and intelligence in their material forms.

(What happened to point "5"?)

Make room for the poetry here.  Language is inadequate for the problem, and every word cannot be literal. There are huge contradictions if we take it that way

Edited February 5, 2014 by mfbukowski