Holy Ghost: "One Of The Sons Of Our Father And Our God"

[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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Calm]

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:

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:

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]

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 October 5, 2011 by Mark Beesley

[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.

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:

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.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wade,

I agree.

Thats it, your being to agreeable. Lol

[Rob Bowman]

Thats it, your being to agreeable. Lol

Consider it a momentary lapse.

[altersteve]

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.

Usually? It should be always. You should be linking readers to the proper sources with every claim you make.

[Mark Beesley]

I wouldn't ask readers to be suspicious by using the wording you suggest ("it may not accurately reflect...") . . .

I am certain better wordling could be employed. But I interpret the reistance to a statement inviting suspicion, i.e. critical analysis, to be somewhat arrogant.

[Rob Osborn]

CFR that we Saints believe that "he [can] be inside of all of us at the same time".

I have never heard anyone significant say that. His influence can be "omnipresent", but His person is not—His spirit body occupies the same volume of space as anyone else's (± a few cubic centimeters). However, it has no mass so He can move instantaneously between people and places. His work is to bring light (which also travels very fast) and knowledge (again, massless), so He can do His work seemingly without the passage of time. But He cannot be in two places at once anymore than you can.

Lehi

Ok then, what exactly is his influence? Is it a substance or what? Why would he need to be a spirit if his omnipresence can be everywhere at once?

[LeSellers]

Ok then, what exactly is ... [the] influence [of the Holy Ghost]? Is it a substance or what? Why would he need to be a spirit if his omnipresence can be everywhere at once?

No, it is not "a substance". It is an energy (as best I can define it), like light. It radiates (for want of a better term) from Him, but completely under His control.

He needs to be a spirit (as opposed to having a corporeal body) because He must, in the words of the Doctrine and Covenants, "dwell in us" (Doc&Cov 130:22), which is not possible for a corporeal person. Only a spirit can do that. His mission is to reveal the truth, to confirm baptismal and other covenants, to affirm choices made by the righteous, and to (for those who are prepared for it) to "burn out" the last vestiges of sinfulness, to literally change the person into a new man.

Lehi

BTW, you did not respond to the Call For Reference. LS

Edited October 5, 2011 by LeSellers

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

For what it's worth, there is some evidence that the Holy Spirit does not "dwell within us" at all, and that such a concept is one of the "sectarian notions" (such as the similar idea that the Father and Son dwell within us) which was opposed by Joseph Smith. As some have noted on this board, the printed version of section 130 contains a late and doctrinally significant error. The original (available somewhere in the Joseph Smith Papers project) said that "the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit. - and a person cannot have the personage of the H G in his heart he may receive the gift of the holy Ghost. it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him." [Emphasis added]

The edited and canonized version says that: "the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him."

The original, citing Joseph Smith, stated that the personage of the Holy Ghost could not dwell in someone's heart. The edited version, which was revised and canonized only after Brother Joseph's death, says it can, because it's a spirit. But they're complete opposites; the original makes much more sense in the context of full LDS theology.

Edited October 5, 2011 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[LeSellers]

The edited and canonized version says that: "the Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him." [My emphasis.]

The fact that it's canonized is the key, at least in my mind. Joseph himself edited many of the records of his revelations, including the Book of Mormon and most sections in the Doctrine and Covenants. It took at least three tries for him to get to the point of what we have in the JST, and it was never finished. To say that his original record was more correct than a later, canonized version seems to disregard the non-infallibility rule and the IX Article of Faith.

Lehi

[David T]

The fact that it's canonized is the key, at least in my mind. Joseph himself edited many of the records of his revelations, including the Book of Mormon and most sections in the Doctrine and Covenants. It took at least three tries for him to get to the point of what we have in the JST, and it was never finished. To say that his original record was more correct than a later, canonized version seems to disregard the non-infallibility rule and the IX Article of Faith.

Lehi

For the record, Joseph didn't edit this statement. I think it was Orson Pratt who did, apparently to harmonize it with his developing cosmology.

[LeSellers]

For the record, Joseph didn't edit this statement. I think it was Orson Pratt who did, apparently to harmonize it with his developing cosmology.

And yet it is canonized as we have it today, irrespective of who edited it to its current form.

My Joseph Smith examples were to demonstrate the principle. I was not trying to say that it was Joseph who corrected it. That's why I wrote, "Joseph himself edited many of the records of his revelations, including the Book of Mormon and most sections in the Doctrine and Covenants" The use of "himself" and "many" in this context implies that in the case before us, it was not he who did it.

Lehi