The Nature Of The Holy Spirit

[Ahab]

How does this impact anything I said regarding faith?Of course faith can exist in things that turn out to be false. Hence the need to judge our experimentation by fruits.I don't see how this contradicts my earlier comments?

You said faith is the opposite of surety, which I referred to as the state of being sure about something. Try looking in a thesaurus to see that faith is another word for assurance, or look at the JST of Hebrews 11 where Paul and Joseph defined what faith is. It's the basis for a testimony, like when God assures us that something is true.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Ahab

[teddyaware]

Absolutely agreed on all counts!

 

There was an article written during Romney's campaign by a secular philosopher about James Faulconer, a BYU philosophy prof who holds similar views, essentially saying that "Mormons don't know what they have" and that is absolutely right.

 

Faulconer bases his insights on what we call "continental philosophy" which consists of a philosophy called "phenomenology" which says, essentially (if one can do this in 25 words or less- which one can't!) that all phenomena- primarily subjective phenomena- is "real" in every way and that a true science would investigate the subjective as well as the objective.  One of the founders of phenomenology was Martin Heidegger.  To make his highly complex and difficult philosophy cartoonishly oversimplified, one could say that it is based on the analysis of what it means to "be in the world" which he calls "Being"- making it sound Platonic- but it is not- but which one might characterize as what we as individual humans in this world experience in being human.

 

Richard Rorty was an American philosopher whom I quote all the time, and he had an affinity for Heidegger, because both phenomenology and Pragmatism- which was Rorty's philosophical background.  My philosophical background is based in Pragmatism as well.

 

To make a long story short- this secular philosopher praised Faulconer and his understanding of Mormonism as it related to phenomenology.

 

So I am not making this stuff up, long story short.  A founder of Pragmatism was William James, who wrote a book about the "validity" of religious experience and it has been recognized as having great affinity to Mormonism. 

 

I will look up references as I have time to do so, but the bottom line is that this affinity between seeing Mormonism this way and Pragmatism and Phenomenology has been long established in Mormon intellectual circles.  http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/pragmatizing-mormonism-and-baptizing-william-james-or-was-william-james-a-closet-mormon-and-joseph-smith-a-proto-pragmatist-part-i-on-william-james-and-mormonism/

 

There are many other articles showing this affinity- it's not like I made it all up.   I wish I did, but I didn't!

I've just read the essay on James with great interest and looked up Faulconer and read some of his writing as well. Tried to find Faulconer's article on Mormons "not knowing what they have" but couldn't locate it. If in the event you come across it, please do let me have the link because after all that's transpired on this thread, I'd really like to read it. Thanks for all your kind help and great insights.

[mfbukowski]

Too easy.  But then you never got to go to Primary, did you?

 

http://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/our-primary-colors?lang=eng

 

 

This may be false doctrine now that I think about it though since it teaches that we have a "creed"….

Holy cow!  That's the whole problem right there!  Neoplatonic category errors right there in primary! 

[mfbukowski]

I've just read the essay on James with great interest and looked up Faulconer and read some of his writing as well. Tried to find Faulconer's article on Mormons "not knowing what they have" but couldn't locate it. If in the event you come across it, please do let me have the link because after all that's transpired on this thread, I'd really like to read it. Thanks for all your kind help and great insights.

I will find it- I have the link bookmarked on another computer.

 

But here is some more- this is a fairly dense article which I haven't completed yet but will now finish up so we can discuss it if you like.  It is written for philosophy types so there might be some rather opaque jargon in it.

http://www.smpt.org/docs/faulconer_element1-1.html

 

Frankly I think he makes it all more complicated than it needs to be.  Wittgenstein was a philosopher who basically felt that all philosophical problems derived from semantic problems, and I'd like to see a dose of Wittgenstein thrown into Faulconer's writing.

 

But here's another, written for a more general audience, which links to a Faulconer article.  This article is about Nagel really.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/18/stone-links-nagel-agonistes/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

[mfbukowski]

I've just read the essay on James with great interest and looked up Faulconer and read some of his writing as well. Tried to find Faulconer's article on Mormons "not knowing what they have" but couldn't locate it. If in the event you come across it, please do let me have the link because after all that's transpired on this thread, I'd really like to read it. Thanks for all your kind help and great insights.

OK here it is.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/why-i-love-mormonism/?_php=true&_type=blogs&nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20120917&_r=0

The final sentences say:

Perhaps Mormonism is not so far from romanticism after all. To claim that it is simply Christian is to fail to grasp its theological, poetic and political audacity. It is much more than mere Christianity. Why are Mormons so keen to conceal their pearl of the greatest price? Why is no one really talking about this? In the context of you-know-who’s presidential bid, people appear to be endlessly talking about Mormonism, but its true theological challenge is entirely absent from the discussion.

[CV75]

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

As I clearly posted, "He" did.

[CV75]

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)

The scriptures you provided do not establish that law is composed of matter.

I am not saying that there is no law; simply that it isn’t composed of matter. God is composed of matter. He personifies the eternal laws. He uses them to control everything that isn’t an agent unto itself and to guide everything that is.

The agency of man is “because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them,” and they receive the light. Just because man is spirit (matter) does not mean agency is also composed of matter. On one hand, agency is caused or created by the conditions described in that verse. On the other hand, there is an eternal law of agency. In either case, it needn’t be composed of matter. As I mentioned before, I think the material (such as spirit and element) and the immaterial (such as law and faith) are co-eternal and in God’s children, a compound in one.

I have no problem with the idea that a most infinitesimally refined particle of matter possesses agency and willingly obeys God as He commands it. Neither do I have a problem with the same particle disobeying God. I also have no problem with either material or immaterial things that do not possess agency simply being controlled by God. And I have no problem with God adopting or personifying material or immaterial things that either do or do not possess agency.

Remember, your own observation is that “scriptural terminology can be somewhat fluid.”

[CV75]

This is an excellent insight into the "disagreement" with CV75. We think so called immaterial abstractions have an existence of their own, but in reality they can only exist within the mind. We can sort of visualize immaterial principles floating around in the ether, but in the end its all happening in the mind, not in the ether. And what happens in the mind are real phenomena.

Agency is caused when the mind receives the light; the law of agency governing this event is co-eternal (as co-eternal as the mind), but the law doesn’t exist because of the person’s mind. Insisting that either agency or the law of agency is a particle floating around the mind is just as ridiculous as insisting that immaterial principles float around in the ether (immaterial things can’t float!). Now once the law of agency is personified, this immaterial principle exists in God’s mind in some other way than floating. Matter exists, and so laws; they are not the same thing and existence isn’t exclusively one or the other.

[CV75]

All of this obviously becomes very confusing.

Then keep it simple, like I do!

[teddyaware]

The scriptures you provided do not establish that law is composed of matter.

I am not saying that there is no law; simply that it isn’t composed of matter. God is composed of matter. He personifies the eternal laws. He uses them to control everything that isn’t an agent unto itself and to guide everything that is.

The agency of man is “because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them,” and they receive the light. Just because man is spirit (matter) does not mean agency is also composed of matter. On one hand, agency is caused or created by the conditions described in that verse. On the other hand, there is an eternal law of agency. In either case, it needn’t be composed of matter. As I mentioned before, I think the material (such as spirit and element) and the immaterial (such as law and faith) are co-eternal and in God’s children, a compound in one.

I have no problem with the idea that a most infinitesimally refined particle of matter possesses agency and willingly obeys God as He commands it. Neither do I have a problem with the same particle disobeying God. I also have no problem with either material or immaterial things that do not possess agency simply being controlled by God. And I have no problem with God adopting or personifying material or immaterial things that either do or do not possess agency.

Remember, your own observation is that “scriptural terminology can be somewhat fluid.”

If light is Spirit -- and I believe I have demonstrated through the scriptures that it is -- then the following scriptural reference proves the law is matter because it is embedded in the light of Christ that fills the immensity of space:

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

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

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C 88)

 

I'm interested to see how if you will try overcome the plain meaning of these words.

 

Edited February 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

If light is Spirit -- and I believe I have demonstrated through the scriptures that it is -- then the following scriptural reference proves the law is matter because it is embedded in the light of Christ that fills the immensity of space:

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

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

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C 88)

 

I'm interested to see how if you will try overcome the plain meaning of these words.

Your demonstrations rely on the fluidity of the scriptural terminology you wish to use. Being "embedded" in light (since that is how you interpert the scripture) doesn't require the law to be composed of light. Light is the medium through which all the things in verses 11-13 are carried out in our clearly material existence, which doesn't preclude our co-existence with immaterial things. "The light is the law" is just as figurative as "Jesus is the light and the law". Is Jesus literally the light and the law? He might as well be, but I see Him as more the personification of the light and the law. With respect to His brightness and glory, light is ceratinly a material component of His being as well.

[teddyaware]

Your demonstrations rely on the fluidity of the scriptural terminology you wish to use. Being "embedded" in light (since that is how you interpert the scripture) doesn't require the law to be composed of light. Light is the medium through which all the things in verses 11-13 are carried out in our clearly material existence, which doesn't preclude our co-existence with immaterial things. "The light is the law" is just as figurative as "Jesus is the light and the law". Is Jesus literally the light and the law? He might as well be, but I see Him as more the personification of the light and the law. With respect to His brightness and glory, light is ceratinly a material component of His being as well.

There's no recourse to "fluidity" of scriptural terminology on your part to get away from the plain meaning of those verses in D&C 88. These clearly indicate the light of Christ, that fills the immensity of space, and in actual reality really is in and through all things, proceeds from His presence in the same way the very real rays of the sun proceed from the solar orb to give light and life to our world. There is nothing figurative about it; this is pure divine science.

 

And there's nothing figurative about God being the law. Jesus Christ quite literally is the law.

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. (3 Nephi 15)

 

The law is material because Christ is material and He is the law.

 

There is a powerful, life-giving light that proceeds forth from Christ (who is the law), and the law that is within that light fills the universe and all things that are in the universe. Again, it is all real and there's nothing figurative about it. What you don't seem to realize is you're treading on the same ground that the caused the Greek influenced Trinitarian immaterialists to invent within their minds a God made out of nothing. 

 

The law is not the law if it is only written on stone, metal plates, papyrus or paper. It only becomes the law when it is literally written within the human mind and upon the emotions of the human heart.

3 Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. (2 Corinthians 3)

 

And with this there's little or nothing left to say. If you want to believe the light of Christ and/or its component living and powerful attributes are figurative, that's fine. Let's just cordially agree to disagree.

Edited February 6, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ahab]

If light is Spirit -- and I believe I have demonstrated through the scriptures that it is -- then the following scriptural reference proves the law is matter because it is embedded in the light of Christ that fills the immensity of space:

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

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

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things. (D&C 88)

I'm interested to see how if you will try overcome the plain meaning of these words.

As I've said before, that light being referred to is his intelligence, or all that he knows through his intellect. He knows all things about everything everywhere throughout the immensity of space. And when we or anyone else learns anything at all about anything in all of existence, not only does he already know that but it was he who helped us know about that by not only making it observable to us but by him sharing his thoughts with us to try to help us learn about it.

Many people simply fail to realize how much and how well he governs, and how we get to learn what we know. He even knows about all of the bad and evil things that are going on everywhere, and even though he allows it to test those who are involved there will come a day when everything will be settled satisfactorily for the benefit of everyone who loves the Lord.

[teddyaware]

As I've said before, that light being referred to is his intelligence, or all that he knows through his intellect. He knows all things about everything everywhere throughout the immensity of space. And when we or anyone else learns anything at all about anything in all of existence, not only does he already know that but it was he who helped us know about that by not only making it observable to us but by him sharing his thoughts with us to try to help us learn about it.

Many people simply fail to realize how much and how well he governs, and how we get to learn what we know. He even knows about all of the bad and evil things that are going on everywhere, and even though he allows it to test those who are involved there will come a day when everything will be settled satisfactorily for the benefit of everyone who loves the Lord.

I'm in agreement with this.

[CV75]

Let's just cordially agree to disagree.

Not yet!

I understand you to say that the spirit of a man is uncreated intelligence, which is a kind of light that acts independently in relation to the greater light that is manifest to it. This spirit or light differentiates itself to entail every eternal principle and law necessary for its existence in various spheres of action. Where he isn’t self-sufficient, God supports him until he can differentiate into the being with the attendant principles laws he needs for existence and advancement. Every spirit is thus a universe of all the eternal laws it needs at any stage of its progress, and it can progress as far as it wants.

Further correct choices permits further differentiation to allow the spirit to receive a mortal and eventually an immortal body, with additional principles and laws self-contained within the spirit body. The spirit is not adding more matter unto its spirit, but rather differentiating all of its existing spirit / light matter into a greater and greater variety of eternal principles and laws without changing the form of its spirit body. The body of physical element (which is also eternal) is provided to the spirit by God in both the mortal and immortal states, and the material light of Christ which keeps all this together is manifest and received by the uncreated intelligence as he progresses. That’s “received” as in borrowed as an influence or as a pattern to emulate, not taken or absorbed to become materially greater in mass (other than the addition of element or the physical body).

On one hand, the light of Christ can be the same light as His Spirit, or as His divinely differentiated uncreated intelligence, just as we are light and uncreated intelligence (though less developed). On the other hand, the light of Christ is light that comes through Him (D&C 88:11). If these are both the same, Christ has differentiated His light and its frequency so that it leaves, returns and passes through Him again in the form of physical light and power and eternal principles and laws without reducing His inseparably connected spirit and element.

In this way, eternal principles and laws are the differentiated light matter of the individual spirit or uncreated intelligence. God possesses these in fullness and we possess as many as we can bear, and can eventually become like Him. So a spirit can differentiate into innumerable fully integrated material forms while retaining its human spirit and physical bodily forms and comprehending these principles and laws. Whether a spirit either brings to earth the law of gravity by which it abides, or relies on God to provide it for him, in either case the law is a material differentiation of the light of an uncreated intelligence. This process is all part of the eternal round.

But that is just one kind of light—there is still room for the “immaterial” which is acted upon to bring those same and/or other principles and laws into the spirit’s being without changing it materially, and the spirit masters and uses those same laws to produce the same results. Perhaps both processes are going on simultaneously.

[Ahab]

I'm in agreement with this.

Do you also agree that his intellect/intelligence is one and the same as his spirit which animates or gives life to his (other) physical/resurrected body and that not only can he share things with other persons/spirits/intelligences but other persons/spirits/intelligences, even of other kinds, can share what they know and are, including being able to perpetuate their own species?

[Ahab]

When considering and talking about what spirits/intelligences are it can help to realize there are different kinds of spirits/intelligences/beings as well as different levels or degrees of intelligence within the same species. Like how all of our kind, both male and female, have the same kind of spirit/intelligence as our Father in heaven and within our species there are those who have the same degree and level of intelligence as he does, with others of the same kind who do not. And then of course there are other kinds of beings/spirits/intelligences, like animals and plants and microbes.

[teddyaware]

Not yet!

I understand you to say that the spirit of a man is uncreated intelligence, which is a kind of light that acts independently in relation to the greater light that is manifest to it. This spirit or light differentiates itself to entail every eternal principle and law necessary for its existence in various spheres of action. Where he isn’t self-sufficient, God supports him until he can differentiate into the being with the attendant principles laws he needs for existence and advancement. Every spirit is thus a universe of all the eternal laws it needs at any stage of its progress, and it can progress as far as it wants.

Further correct choices permits further differentiation to allow the spirit to receive a mortal and eventually an immortal body, with additional principles and laws self-contained within the spirit body. The spirit is not adding more matter unto its spirit, but rather differentiating all of its existing spirit / light matter into a greater and greater variety of eternal principles and laws without changing the form of its spirit body. The body of physical element (which is also eternal) is provided to the spirit by God in both the mortal and immortal states, and the material light of Christ which keeps all this together is manifest and received by the uncreated intelligence as he progresses. That’s “received” as in borrowed as an influence or as a pattern to emulate, not taken or absorbed to become materially greater in mass (other than the addition of element or the physical body).

On one hand, the light of Christ can be the same light as His Spirit, or as His divinely differentiated uncreated intelligence, just as we are light and uncreated intelligence (though less developed). On the other hand, the light of Christ is light that comes through Him (D&C 88:11). If these are both the same, Christ has differentiated His light and its frequency so that it leaves, returns and passes through Him again in the form of physical light and power and eternal principles and laws without reducing His inseparably connected spirit and element.

In this way, eternal principles and laws are the differentiated light matter of the individual spirit or uncreated intelligence. God possesses these in fullness and we possess as many as we can bear, and can eventually become like Him. So a spirit can differentiate into innumerable fully integrated material forms while retaining its human spirit and physical bodily forms and comprehending these principles and laws. Whether a spirit either brings to earth the law of gravity by which it abides, or relies on God to provide it for him, in either case the law is a material differentiation of the light of an uncreated intelligence. This process is all part of the eternal round.

But that is just one kind of light—there is still room for the “immaterial” which is acted upon to bring those same and/or other principles and laws into the spirit’s being without changing it materially, and the spirit masters and uses those same laws to produce the same results. Perhaps both processes are going on simultaneously.

Tell you what CV, after all the mental activity I've put into this thread since it started, my mind is a bit weary. This is how I think I'll be able to continue to engage you in dialogue on this topic. Let's keep it very simple from now on. You ask me a one sentence question and I'll give you a one sentence answer; and if I ask you a question we'll continue to use the one sentence rule. Not only will this keep things simple and more enjoyable, but it will also help us to discipline our minds in order to achieve clarity of focus. So I'll start by asking you a one sentence question and, hopefully, you'll answer me in one sentence; and then you can ask me a question if you want to continue...

Question: How is it possible that something immaterial can be acted upon?

 

[CV75]

When considering and talking about what spirits/intelligences are it can help to realize there are different kinds of spirits/intelligences/beings as well as different levels or degrees of intelligence within the same species. Like how all of our kind, both male and female, have the same kind of spirit/intelligence as our Father in heaven and within our species there are those who have the same degree and level of intelligence as he does, with others of the same kind who do not. And then of course there are other kinds of beings/spirits/intelligences, like animals and plants and microbes.

Some questions about that: how simple a life form can uncreated intelligence be? Can uncreated intelligence not be a life form at all? Are all forms of light forms of uncreated intelligence?

[CV75]

Tell you what CV, after all the mental activity I've put into this thread since it started, my mind is a bit weary. This is how I think I'll be able to continue to engage you in dialogue on this topic. Let's keep it very simple from now on. You ask me a one sentence question and I'll give you a one sentence answer; and if I ask you a question we'll continue to use the one sentence rule. Not only will this keep things simple and more enjoyable, but it will also help us to discipline our minds in order to achieve clarity of focus. So I'll start by asking you a one sentence question and, hopefully, you'll answer me in one sentence; and then you can ask me a question if you want to continue...

Question: How is it possible that something immaterial can be acted upon?

 

First, it is possible through an uncreated intelligence that is doing the acting (almost goes without saying); and second, it is possible through the faith of the spirit that is acting.

[Ahab]

Some questions about that: how simple a life form can uncreated intelligence be? Can uncreated intelligence not be a life form at all? Are all forms of light forms of uncreated intelligence?

1) all forms of life are intelligences, from the most basic to the most supreme form of life (us), and they are uncreated only in the sense that they are created only by their own kind, however that kind perpetuates its own kind.

2) No. Life itself is in a form of intelligence.

3) Yes. All forms of life emit some form of light, which in itself is a form of energy, which in itself is perpetuated by its own kind.

[teddyaware]

Duplicate

Edited February 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

First, it is possible through an uncreated intelligence that is doing the acting (almost goes without saying); and second, it is possible through the faith of the spirit that is acting.

Name two or three immaterial "things" that can be acted upon?

Edited February 7, 2014 by teddyaware

[CV75]

Name two or three immaterial "things" that can be acted upon?

Using my intelligence (scriptural definition), at any given time I can act on 1) faith in the past; 2) faith in the present; 3) faith in the future; 4) pure intent; 5) change; 6) hope; 7) charity; 8 ) freedom, liberty, agency to improve the nature of the matter my soul (both spirit and element) is comprised of. Edited February 7, 2014 by CV75

[CV75]

1) all forms of life are intelligences, from the most basic to the most supreme form of life (us), and they are uncreated only in the sense that they are created only by their own kind, however that kind perpetuates its own kind.

2) No. Life itself is in a form of intelligence.

3) Yes. All forms of life emit some form of light, which in itself is a form of energy, which in itself is perpetuated by its own kind.

So are you saying in "1" that uncreated human intelligence is really created by a Father of its own kind?

I'm not sure I understand "2"--can you rephrase it? Because of that, I'm not sure I understand "3"...