73 replies to this topic

[LeSellers]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:

If the Holy Ghost is a material entity of any kind always located at any given time at a particular spatial location, he (his "spirit body") cannot move "instantaneously" from one place or person to another, assuming that by instantaneously you mean "without any passage of time." ... So your doctrine requires that some time, even if something like a nanosecond, must pass as the Holy Ghost moves from one place to another.

With God, all things are possible.

At least that's my belief.

Furthermore, since the material that is spirit is unknown to us, the fact is that we cannot reasonably try to use Newtonian, Einsteinian, or quantum mechanics physics regarding this unknown matter. If Jesus can get into a locked room with His explicitly material body, it seems that we can hypothesize that the Holy Ghost can take His (of unknown material) spirit body anywhere, anywhen He chooses to, without being subject to the limited set of laws we have discovered.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers, 05 October 2011 - 09:32 AM.

[shalamabobbi]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:

Lehi,

You wrote:



If the Holy Ghost is a material entity of any kind always located at any given time at a particular spatial location, he (his "spirit body") cannot move "instantaneously" from one place or person to another, assuming that by instantaneously you mean "without any passage of time." To "move," in a literal material sense, means to traverse space, to change locations from point A to point B by moving along some sort of path (whether a straight line, a curve, or something more complex) between the two points. Nothing material does so without some passage of time. Light moves very quickly indeed, but it still takes time. For example, it takes four years for light to traverse the space from the nearest star (excluding our own sun) to our planet. If the Holy Ghost were to move from point A to point B without any passage of time, he would then literally be in two places at the same time. So your doctrine requires that some time, even if something like a nanosecond, must pass as the Holy Ghost moves from one place to another.

Not necessarily. We don't know anything about the physics of any other realm besides this mortal universe. What we know of the laws that pertain here we arrived at by observation. In other words the *laws* are written in a manner to describe what is observed to be.

Since we do not and cannot observe how anything behaves in the spirit world we have no way to state what the laws are there. We have no idea of what refined matter is.

It would seem that realm is not constrained by the common limitations that we experience here. No death or decay. Standing in the air means no limitation by gravitation which in turn would mean the immortal realm is not a part of the 4 dimensional spacetime to which we are bound.

All a matter of faith of course which means as any atheist worth his salt would point out that there isn't any evidence for any of this conjecture, which is precisely the point. No evidence, no ability to make any statement about what is or is not possible in a realm of existence that we cannot observe.

[wenglund]

In my worldview, there is a wide gulf between saying "the LDS church teaches..." and saying "a few LDS members have said on rare occasion..."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund, 05 October 2011 - 10:35 AM.

[CV75]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 07:11 AM, said:

In an earlier thread one of the side discussions was over the question of whether in LDS doctrine the Holy Ghost is understood to be a spirit son of Heavenly Father. Joseph Fielding McConkie makes this statement in The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, but as was pointed out the EM is not an official LDS publication.

I recently ran across this statement from Heber C. Kimball, one of the twelve apostles under Joseph Smith and a member of the First Presidency under Brigham Young:

"The Spirit that is on me this morning is the Spirit of the Lord; it is the Holy Ghost, although some of you may not think that the Holy Ghost is ever cheerful. Well, let me tell you, the Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God; and he is that man that stood next to Jesus Christ, just as I stand by brother Brigham" (JD 5:179).

I'm not sure if Mormons would consider such a statement as "official" LDS doctrine, but perhaps it shows that this idea is more representative of LDS teaching than the quote from the EM by itself may have suggested. It is interesting to note that Kimball made this statement in the context of asserting that the Spirit of the Lord was on him that morning as he was speaking.

Can you provide a point you would like discussed in regards to this OP? Thank you.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

By your reasoning, then, it should be possible for the Holy Ghost to be non-material. It should also be possible for the Holy Ghost to be in two or more places at the same time.

LeSellers, on 05 October 2011 - 08:51 AM, said:

With God, all things are possible.

At least that's my belief.

Furthermore, since the material that is spirit is unknown to us, the fact is that we cannot reasonably try to use Newtonian, Einsteinian, or quantum mechanics physics regarding this unknown matter. If Jesus can get into a locked room with His explicitly material body, it seems that we can hypothesize that the Holy Ghost can take His (of unknown material) spirit body anywhere, anywhen He chooses to, without being subject to the limited set of laws we have discovered.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

shalamabobbi,

By your reasoning, there's no reason why the Holy Ghost could not be in two or more places at the same time.

Incidentally, if you're right about spirit beings "standing in the air" and not being subject to gravity, then there's really no point in God sitting on a literal throne (i.e., a chair) in heaven.

shalamabobbi, on 05 October 2011 - 08:59 AM, said:

Not necessarily. We don't know anything about the physics of any other realm besides this mortal universe. What we know of the laws that pertain here we arrived at by observation. In other words the *laws* are written in a manner to describe what is observed to be.

Since we do not and cannot observe how anything behaves in the spirit world we have no way to state what the laws are there. We have no idea of what refined matter is.

It would seem that realm is not constrained by the common limitations that we experience here. No death or decay. Standing in the air means no limitation by gravitation which in turn would mean the immortal realm is not a part of the 4 dimensional spacetime to which we are bound.

All a matter of faith of course which means as any atheist worth his salt would point out that there isn't any evidence for any of this conjecture, which is precisely the point. No evidence, no ability to make any statement about what is or is not possible in a realm of existence that we cannot observe.

[LeSellers]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 09:39 AM, said:

By your reasoning, then, it should be possible for the Holy Ghost to be non-material. It should also be possible for the Holy Ghost to be in two or more places at the same time.

LOL!!!

No, my reasoning starts from the axiom that the Holy Ghost is material and that He is spatially defined. Ergo, He cannot be in any more than one place at a time, nor can He be immaterial.

Nice try, though.

Lehi

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

Well, we seem to have some decent discussion going already. I'd appreciate comments on my points that some authoritative and respected sources in LDS history have affirmed that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God; that the logic of the LDS doctrine of a heavenly family points to that conclusion; and that even if this is not currently "official" LDS doctrine it is not a doctrine that distorts or misrepresents the LDS faith.

CV75, on 05 October 2011 - 09:29 AM, said:

Can you provide a point you would like discussed in regards to this OP? Thank you.

[Rob Bowman]

Lehi,

Then I guess it is not so that "all things are possible with God," in your understanding, because he cannot be in two places at once.

LeSellers, on 05 October 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

LOL!!!

No, my reasoning starts from the axiom that the Holy Ghost is material and that He is spatially defined. Ergo, He cannot be in any more than one place at a time, nor can He be immaterial.

Nice try, though.

Lehi

[CV75]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 09:45 AM, said:

I'd appreciate comments on my points that some authoritative and respected sources in LDS history have affirmed that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God; that the logic of the LDS doctrine of a heavenly family points to that conclusion; and that even if this is not currently "official" LDS doctrine it is not a doctrine that distorts or misrepresents the LDS faith.

I agree that some authoritative and respected sources in LDS history have affirmed that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God; that the logic of the LDS doctrine of a heavenly family points to that conclusion; and that even if this is not currently "official" LDS doctrine it is not a doctrine that distorts or misrepresents the LDS faith (depending on how it is presented and the conclusions that are imposed).

[altersteve]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

Lehi,

Then I guess it is not so that "all things are possible with God," in your understanding, because he cannot be in two places at once.

God can be in two places at once, via what we like to call the Light of Christ; the influence that proceeds from Him throughout the entire universe.

[T-Shirt]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 09:45 AM, said:

CV75,

Well, we seem to have some decent discussion going already. I'd appreciate comments on my points that some authoritative and respected sources in LDS history have affirmed that the Holy Ghost is a spirit son of God; that the logic of the LDS doctrine of a heavenly family points to that conclusion; and that even if this is not currently "official" LDS doctrine it is not a doctrine that distorts or misrepresents the LDS faith.

Rob,
Would it be difficult to simply say something like, "It is a commonly held belief among some Latter-day Saints, that the Holy Ghost is the son of our Heavenly Father.  Though this belief is a logical conclusion and fits within the LDS belief system, there is no official doctrine on the matter."?

Best,
T-Shirt

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

T-Shirt, on 05 October 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:

Rob,
Would it be difficult to simply say something like, "It is a commonly held belief among some Latter-day Saints, that the Holy Ghost is the son of our Heavenly Father.  Though this belief is a logical conclusion and fits within the LDS belief system, there is no official doctrine on the matter."?

Best,
T-Shirt

I agree with this.

[calmoriah]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

Lehi,

Then I guess it is not so that "all things are possible with God," in your understanding, because he cannot be in two places at once.

And IIRC you do not believe he can make a rock he cannot lift. (if it was another poster that discussed this, my apologies and feel free to post that you do believe that God can make a rock he cannot move).

Both positions hold that God cannot do that which logically impossible given his nature.

[Rob Bowman]

T-Shirt,

You wrote:

T-Shirt, on 05 October 2011 - 09:51 AM, said:

Rob,
Would it be difficult to simply say something like, "It is a commonly held belief among some Latter-day Saints, that the Holy Ghost is the son of our Heavenly Father.  Though this belief is a logical conclusion and fits within the LDS belief system, there is no official doctrine on the matter."?

Best,
T-Shirt

No, that's not difficult at all. That's pretty much how I would sum up the matter.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

calmoriah, on 05 October 2011 - 10:06 AM, said:

And IIRC you do not believe he can make a rock he cannot lift. (if it was another poster that discussed this, my apologies and feel free to post that you do believe that God can make a rock he cannot move).

Both positions hold that God cannot do that which logically impossible given his nature.

I agree that God cannot do the logically impossible or do something that is contrary to his nature. I first argued that there was a logical inconsistency in maintaining both that the Holy Ghost has a spirit body that can be in only one place at a time and that he can move from one place to another without any passage of time. Lehi responded that "with God all things are possible." So I pointed out that one wishes to claim that God can do the contradictory (move a localized body from one place to another without time passing), then one might as well concede that the Holy Ghost's "spirit body" can be in two or more places at the same time.

[Mark Beesley]

Rob Bowman, on 05 October 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

Lehi,

Then I guess it is not so that "all things are possible with God," in your understanding, because he cannot be in two places at once.

Can you comprehend a sphere where time does not exist?  I can't.

In any event, I second wenglund/'s comment about the gulf between what the Church teaches and what individuals in the Church teach.  But non-member confusion on the subject is understandable.  Many members of the Church have difficultly with the concept of what constitutes doctrine.  For me, it is easy.  Doctrine is found in the standard works.  If not, it is commentary on doctrine.  It is then up to me, individually, to seek the guidance of the Spirit to decide if it is accurate commentary, and this includes lesson manuals, conference talks, Church magazines, etc.

This is in full accord with scripture that declares whatever is spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit shall be scripture, because that which is spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit must be received by that same spirit, and if it is not, then it does not profit the recipient . . . but it remains an individual quest.  Thus, for any individual to declare something doctrine based on extra-scriptural writings is to impose one's own spiritual tutelage on others, and that is improper,  I have had experiences where I have read commentary on doctrine and the Holy Ghost had confirmed that it is accuate commentary.  I have also had experience where I have read commentary on doctrine where my mind has been darkened, and the accuracy of the commentary was not confirmed.  But I would hesitate to present that extra-scriptural commentary as doctrine based on my own experience, unless prompted by the Holy Spirit.  And not surprisingly, that seldom happens.

I did have an experience, long ago, sitting in a BYU religion class.  A topic came up, and I thought I had something profitable to offer based on what I thought was accurate commentary on the scriptures.  But, as I tried to explain it, the words came out all jumbled, I could hardly understand myself, and the professor, charitably, said that the matters seemed to be getting into a gray area.  I have had simiar experiences since then . . . (I'm a slow learner), but the lesson to me is, restrict your comments to the others to that which can be found in the scriptures, and be grateful for whatever additional light you might receive personally.  And if, perchance, you are inspired to write a commentary, make sure you include the preface that you alone are responsible for the commentary, because not everyone will enjoy the same spiritual endowment as they read your commentary that you enjoyed when you wrote it.

I wonder, do non-LDS commentators who comment on LDS doctrines and commentaries ever include such a disclaimer?  For example, would Rob Bowmann ever include a statement that says, The contents of this work are the author's own interpretations of LDS doctrine and though every effort has been made to be accurate, it may not accurately reflect official doctrines of the Church?

Edited by Mark Beesley, 05 October 2011 - 10:55 AM.

[wenglund]

I think this bears repeating: In my worldview, there is a wide gulf between saying "the LDS church teaches..." and saying "a few LDS members have said on rare occasion..."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Wade,

I agree.

wenglund, on 05 October 2011 - 10:36 AM, said:

I think this bears repeating: In my worldview, there is a wide gulf between saying "the LDS church teaches..." and saying "a few LDS members have said on rare occasion..."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Bowman]

Mark,

You wrote:

Mark Beesley, on 05 October 2011 - 10:35 AM, said:

I wonder, do non-LDS commentators who comment on LDS doctrines and commentaries ever include such a disclaimer?  For example, would Rob Bowmann ever include a statement that says, The contents of this work are the author's own interpretations of LDS doctrine and though every effort has been made to be accurate, it may not accurately reflect official doctrines of the Church?

No one needs to be told that an evangelical article about LDS doctrine is an interpretation of LDS doctrine. I wouldn't ask readers to be suspicious by using the wording you suggest ("it may not accurately reflect..."), but I wouldn't have a problem with some sort of statement directing readers to official LDS sources for firsthand, authoritative articulation of LDS doctrine. In fact, in my articles, I usually do direct readers to primary LDS sources, including links in my online articles.