The Nature Of The Holy Spirit

[mfbukowski]

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.

Immaterial forms are platonic sectarian theology and have no place in the restoration

[CV75]

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.

Exactly--using both matter and non-matter!

As stated elsewhere in this thread, "Anything created cannot be eternal; and earth, water, etc., had their existence in an elementary state, from eternity." This speaks to things comprised of physical and spiritual matter. Eternal laws were never created, just as physical and spiritual matter were not created, and yet they are neither physical nor spiritual matter, and still have everything to do with what acts, what is acted and what is acted upon, including what is created and not, and what is organized verses uncreated.

[CV75]

Immaterial forms are platonic sectarian theology and have no place in the restoration

I'm not using "form" in the material sense, but more as "version," "type" or "way."

[CV75]

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

Just trying to speak in the language of the formula that was persented to me. It is actually my non-literal approach that folks seem to object to!

[Ahab]

I also like our Lord's explanation of the glory of God as intelligence, or light and truth, so when we talk about receiving the glory of God we're talking about receiving light and truth or the intelligence of God, at least if we're talking about receiving celestial glory. The other levels of glory result from not receiving all of the intelligence God offers to share with us.

[mfbukowski]

"What light through yonder window breaks?"

 

Light is therefore not only particles but like BB's if light can break a window.

 

"'Tis Juliet and she is the sun!"

 

That must have been one very large very hot momma! 

[mfbukowski]

Just trying to speak in the language of the formula that was persented to me. It is actually my non-literal approach that folks seem to object to!

As long as you think forms and attributes are linguistic conventions and not immaterial things I would agree.

 

 Courage is someone acting courageously.  A true sentence is one that conveys a useful technique or way of understanding a principle.

 

A type is a group of things we put together conceptually for a specific purpose.  A form is a shape or how something appears.

 

None of these are immaterial entities of any kind.

[mfbukowski]

How could God have created worlds through his intelligence if it was not a physical force?

Who did all the hammering and nailing?  

Edited February 5, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

How could God have created worlds through his intelligence if it was not a physical force?

Who did all the hammering and nailing?

Or planning, like figuring out what to put in a place where there was some space to put what he wanted where.

Yeah, that looks pretty good.

Next!

I wonder if he would ever make an elephant purple?

[CV75]

A type is a group of things we put together conceptually for a specific purpose.  A form is a shape or how something appears.

Yes. it is also “a type or variety of something.” Synonyms: kind, sort, type, class, classification, category, variety…

And "something" is also an unspecified abstract entity or concept, and "appears" is also "manifests" and in any case is subjectively viewed.

[CV75]

How could God have created worlds through his intelligence if it was not a physical force?

By faith, the principle of all action and power, which He subjectively chooses to observe as an exalted, inseparably-connected spirit and element being.

[Ahab]

Yes. it is also “a type or variety of something.” Synonyms: kind, sort, type, class, classification, category, variety…

And "something" is also an unspecified abstract entity or concept, and "appears" is also "manifests" and in any case is subjectively viewed.

Not all of the whats we talk about can be seen with our physical eyes.

Like how I'm still waiting for someone to show me a good idea that I can physically see.

[Ahab]

By faith, the principle of all action and power, which He subjectively chooses to observe as an exalted, inseparably-connected spirit and element being.

And faith is all about being sure about something. So first he intellectually conceived an idea about something he wanted to create, felt sure he could do it, and then did what he was sure he could do.

[teddyaware]

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"?)

Point 5 is "immaterial"... Wait!!! That's not what I mean! I mean point 6 should be point 5 -- I lost track!

Please bear with me because I'm kind of  "spent" on this subject at the moment, so I'm going to answer your points as I'm feeling  and able -- one at a time with a each new post. Each successive post will have your post above at the head, with the point of yours I'm answering in bold italic.

Your point: Nowhere does it say “the light of truth” = “the Spirit of truth.”

 

My answer: Scriptural terminology can be somewhat fluid; and when it comes to the words 'light' and 'spirit' they are sometimes presented as being related but not synonymous and at other times they are presented as being synonymous. Here's an example of the latter:

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)

 

In the above we can clearly see that the light of truth is also the Spirit of truth; the terms are used synonymously. There are other scriptural passages that equate spirit with light as well. I'm sure you're already well aware of this. Even the topical guide points to the virtual interchangeability of light and spirit:

Light of Christ

See also God, Spirit of ; Holy Spirit ; Jesus Christ, Light of the World ; Jesus Christ, Spirit of ; Light [noun] ; Lord, Spirit of (Topical Guide)

Edited February 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

And faith is all about being sure about something. So first he intellectually conceived an idea about something he wanted to create, felt sure he could do it, and then did what he was sure he could do.

This is excellent!

[teddyaware]

Or planning, like figuring out what to put in a place where there was some space to put what he wanted where.

Yeah, that looks pretty good.

Next!

I wonder if he would ever make an elephant purple?

 

I did see a purple elephant once. He had fallen through the ice on a frozen lake and was in the frigid water for over 45 minutes before a truck hitched to him by a strong rope could finally drag him out of what could have been a watery grave. He actually looked purple by the time they got him out. But in the end it all just happened in my imagination.

[teddyaware]

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"?)

 

Your point: "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."

 

My answer: In my post, I tried to make it clear that truth encompasses all the uncreated, self-existing principles of reality, or existence, and that the light of truth is the uncreated awareness, or consciousness of the principles of reality. Nevertheless, as a further demonstration of the fluidity of scriptural terms, D&C 84 does appear to equate truth with light and spirit, most assuredly because truth cannot exist without light or spirit.

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.

46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit. (D&C 84)

 

Notice how verse 46 teaches the exact same principle of spiritual enlightenment as found in verses 11-13 of D&C 88, but D&C 88 uses the word light in place of the word Spirit:

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 claw 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.

Edited February 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Scriptural terminology can be somewhat fluid; and when it comes to the words 'light' and 'spirit' they are sometimes presented as being related but not synonymous and at other times they are presented as being synonymous.

So your formula and the scriptural meaning and conclusions one draws from it are also "somewhat fluid," for yourself as well as anyone! That is why I think it perfectly acceptable for me to posit that the light of Christ is a material substance in some cases and a principle of government in other cases.

 

This fluidity in meaning is a function of our subjective natures, and I'm certain the Lord's as well since by design He communicates "after the manner of [our] language." For example:

 

I am an uncreated intelligence (matter) that by definition exists in an inherent state of subjectivity and agency. As such, I assess and use “all things” at my disposal, which in turn changes the range and scope of my perception and action, which depends on the quality of my spirit (for the better with obedience to Christ or for the worse with disobedience). My perception is and can only be subjective, but since I can only control my actions and not the consequences of those actions, my agency is not (only my application of agency is subjective), and I am judged by God according to the laws He personifies and follows.

 

So as my subjectivity and agency change with my spirit, my being both subjective and an agent does not change because eternal law prescribes that uncreated intelligence is subjective and acts independently. This law is personified in me, and is as uncreated as I am, but is not comprised of matter in and of itself, as I am.

[Bikeemikey]

And faith is all about being sure about something. So first he intellectually conceived an idea about something he wanted to create, felt sure he could do it, and then did what he was sure he could do.

I don't think faith is being sure about something. Rather faith is a willingness to test a proposition... If anything faith is the opposite of surety; it suggests an uncertainty that needs to be tested in order to arrive are more certain knowledge.

Faith is a willingness to act without surety... To act based on hope.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[mfbukowski]

Yes. it is also “a type or variety of something.” Synonyms: kind, sort, type, class, classification, category, variety…

And "something" is also an unspecified abstract entity or concept, and "appears" is also "manifests" and in any case is subjectively viewed.

If you mean they are linguistic conventions I agree otherwise I do not.  I do not like the phrase "abstract entity".  They are just ways we use language- nothing more, nothing less.

 

"Manifests" can be used subjectively or objectively.  "The disease manifests itself in boils" or "God manifested himself to me".    No entities floating around waiting to take form or any of that. 

 

Even the "laws of nature" are just ways of saying that "This always happens".  "Unsupported, things always fall". " We should always treat others as we wish to be treated."

 

We call these "absolute truths" but another way of saying that is that these statements are always true- meaning that you can rely on their results in action.  Don't step off a cliff or you will fall.  Treat others badly and you will have unpleasant consequences eventually.

[mfbukowski]

I don't think faith is being sure about something. Rather faith is a willingness to test a proposition... If anything faith is the opposite of surety; it suggests an uncertainty that needs to be tested in order to arrive are more certain knowledge. Faith is a willingness to act without surety... To act based on hope.

You would be supported by Alma 32 in that view.  The progression stated there is that one starts with a "particle of faith" and when one finds that the principle "works"- or "grows sweet" in the experience of living it, one becomes more certain until it becomes "knowledge".

 

For what it is worth, this fits perfectly with the Mormon saying "I know the church is true" which on this view means "I have exercised faith in the church, and it has grown from faith to certainty that this is God's path, and I know that because it has worked and grown sweet in practical application in my life".

[Bikeemikey]

You would be supported by Alma 32 in that view. The progression stated there is that one starts with a "particle of faith" and when one finds that the principle "works"- or "grows sweet" in the experience of living it, one becomes more certain until it becomes "knowledge".

For what it is worth, this fits perfectly with the Mormon saying "I know the church is true" which on this view means "I have exercised faith in the church, and it has grown from faith to certainty that this is God's path, and I know that because it has worked and grown sweet in practical application in my life".

Alma 32 is one of my faves!!

[mfbukowski]

By faith, the principle of all action and power, which He subjectively chooses to observe as an exalted, inseparably-connected spirit and element being.

I don't know what any of that means.  Who did the hammering?

[teddyaware]

So your formula and the scriptural meaning and conclusions one draws from it are also "somewhat fluid," for yourself as well as anyone! That is why I think it perfectly acceptable for me to posit that the light of Christ is a material substance in some cases and a principle of government in other cases.

 

This fluidity in meaning is a function of our subjective natures, and I'm certain the Lord's as well since by design He communicates "after the manner of [our] language." For example:

 

I am an uncreated intelligence (matter) that by definition exists in an inherent state of subjectivity and agency. As such, I assess and use “all things” at my disposal, which in turn changes the range and scope of my perception and action, which depends on the quality of my spirit (for the better with obedience to Christ or for the worse with disobedience). My perception is and can only be subjective, but since I can only control my actions and not the consequences of those actions, my agency is not (only my application of agency is subjective), and I am judged by God according to the laws He personifies and follows.

 

So as my subjectivity and agency change with my spirit, my being both subjective and an agent does not change because eternal law prescribes that uncreated intelligence is subjective and acts independently. This law is personified in me, and is as uncreated as I am, but is not comprised of matter in and of itself, as I am.

The law is most certainly composed of truth and light because truth and the light of truth are not mere lifeless, non-existent abstractions without knowledge or will. As I said yesterday, both truth and the light of truth have a life of their own and can function and act independently...

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.

Nothingness cannot act of its own volition because it does not exist. In fact, Lehi taught that the only way nothingness could exist (in a manner of speaking) is if there were no God...

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

Edited February 5, 2014 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

Not all of the whats we talk about can be seen with our physical eyes.

Like how I'm still waiting for someone to show me a good idea that I can physically see.

Look at your computer.  Aren't computers good ideas?