When Did The Holy Ghost Become A Personage In The Godhead?

[theplains]

I was reading the Lectures on Faith and compared it with some of the notes made on 

wikipedia. 

 

There it stated that, "For instance, in Lecture 5, paragraph 2, it defines the Father 

as a "personage of spirit, glory and power." Whereas in section 130 of the Doctrine 

and Covenants, verse 22 states that "the Father has a body of flesh and bones as 

tangible as man's." In addition, the Father and Son are said to possess the same mind, 

"which mind is the Holy Spirit" (Lecture 5, paragraph 2). The Holy Spirit is not a 

personage, as defined at the beginning of paragraph 2: "There are two personages who 

constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things...They 

are the Father and Son."

 

See attached pdf file.

 

What inspired the Latter-day Saints to disbelieve the Holy Ghost was a personage in

the Godhead for some of their history?  Was it some scripture, the teaching of Joseph 

Smith, or another subsequent LDS president?

 

What revelation (and time frame) led to the teaching that the Holy Spirit was actually the

third personage in the Godhead?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[Sevenbak]

I would suggest reading the whole Lectures on Faith, not just the little bit you posted.  For instance, here's some you left out, from LoF.

 

 

The Godhead consists of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (5:1c);

 

The Son is a "personage of tabernacle" (5:2d) who "possess[es] the same mind with the Father; which Mind is the Holy Spirit" (5:2j,k)

 

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the "supreme power over all things" (5:2l);

 

"These three constitute the Godhead and are one: the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness;" (5:2m);

[Storm Rider]

Hello Jim, as you study the teachings of the prophets and of the Church you will find that we believe in a Godhead consisting of three persons and they are one in purpose.  Context is what is necessary in order to understand and avoid being lead by individual phrases in writings and scriptures.  

 

Our current understanding comes from Joseph Smith and clarified in scripture.  I wish I had an answer that is more precise or that answers all of your questions, but I don't.  You have several individuals who study the history of the Church that are committed to the concept that there were all kinds of changes in LDS doctrine - specifically that we were Trinitarian and then we were not.  If find their work to be less than complete and overly focused on those same phrases I mentioned above.  

 

As with all scripture, you will find what you want, but you have to ignore the other half and limit context. Cheers,

[Tacenda]

Hello Jim, as you study the teachings of the prophets and of the Church you will find that we believe in a Godhead consisting of three persons and they are one in purpose. Context is what is necessary in order to understand and avoid being lead by individual phrases in writings and scriptures.

Our current understanding comes from Joseph Smith and clarified in scripture. I wish I had an answer that is more precise or that answers all of your questions, but I don't. You have several individuals who study the history of the Church that are committed to the concept that there were all kinds of changes in LDS doctrine - specifically that we were Trinitarian and then we were not. If find their work to be less than complete and overly focused on those same phrases I mentioned above.

As with all scripture, you will find what you want, but you have to ignore the other half and limit context. Cheers,

Yes, you have to or you don't, admit Joseph taught God as a spirit.

[Storm Rider]

Yes, you have to or you don't, admit Joseph taught God as a spirit.

 

No, you have to understand the context of the statement or you must ignore everything else he said where he indicated that God was not a spirit.  Given that there is a conflict do you want to focus on only 1/2 of the conversation or take everything in context? 

[Rivers]

Mormon doctrine has evolved over time. It really doesn't bother me that our understanding of things changes with new light and knowledge.

[halconero]

Yes, you have to or you don't, admit Joseph taught God as a spirit.

We're spirits too though!

[thesometimesaint]

We're spirits too though!

 

True.

[EllenMaksoud]

 

I was reading the Lectures on Faith and compared it with some of the notes made on 

wikipedia. 

 

There it stated that, "For instance, in Lecture 5, paragraph 2, it defines the Father 

as a "personage of spirit, glory and power." Whereas in section 130 of the Doctrine 

and Covenants, verse 22 states that "the Father has a body of flesh and bones as 

tangible as man's." In addition, the Father and Son are said to possess the same mind, 

"which mind is the Holy Spirit" (Lecture 5, paragraph 2). The Holy Spirit is not a 

personage, as defined at the beginning of paragraph 2: "There are two personages who 

constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things...They 

are the Father and Son."

 

See attached pdf file.

 

What inspired the Latter-day Saints to disbelieve the Holy Ghost was a personage in

the Godhead for some of their history?  Was it some scripture, the teaching of Joseph 

Smith, or another subsequent LDS president?

 

What revelation (and time frame) led to the teaching that the Holy Spirit was actually the

third personage in the Godhead?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Practically speaking, the trinity was first mentioned in the 4th century as old documents show. I actually don't accept much of what the apostate said. And I am very comfortable with allowing inequalities to exist until such time that  God decides to straighten it all out. We seem to think that only three personages exist but what about the Heavenly Host? Where do they fit in all this?

 

Now I am going to go listen to "Evanescence" loud enough to make my ears bleed.

[The Nehor]

September 6th, 576 AD.

 

Before that Stan was in the Godhead.

[janderich]

What inspired the Latter-day Saints to disbelieve the Holy Ghost was a personage in

the Godhead for some of their history?  Was it some scripture, the teaching of Joseph 

Smith, or another subsequent LDS president?

 The question is not what inspired the saints to disbelieve the Holy Ghost was a personage in the Godhead, for the saints always believed the Holy Ghost to be part of the Godhead. This is evidenced in the very same section of Lectures on Faith for we read: 

 

And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father, possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the grate, matchless, governing and supreme, power over all things; by whom all things were created and made that were crated and made, and these three constitute the Godhead... 

Also, the second to last question in Lecture 5, "Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead? They do."

 

The real question is about the Holy Ghost. What is the nature of the Holy Ghost and has this understanding changed? In D&C 130:22 it sates, "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." However, this does not appear to be what Joseph originally said. The two sources from which this was taken say the following: 

 

...but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit - and a person cannot have the personage of the HG in his heart he may receive the gift of the Holy ghost, it may descend upon him but not to tarry with him. (Joseph Smith Diary, by Willard Richards, April 2, 1843)

And from William Clayton:

 

The Holy Ghost is a personage, and a person cannot have the personage of the H.G. in his heart. A man may receive the gifts of the H. G., and the H.G. may descend upon a man but not to tarry with him. (William Clayton Diary, April 2, 1843)

From Words of the Prophet Joseph Smith in the notes section it explains that the wording was changed in 1850 by church historians from which the current wording was taken. See also an interesting article here. 

[mfbukowski]

As I recall, it was in 1980 or so.

[mfbukowski]

September 6th, 576 AD.

 

Before that Stan was in the Godhead.

LOL! You beat me to it!!   Stan??!

[theplains]

 

 The question is not what inspired the saints to disbelieve the Holy Ghost was a personage in the Godhead, for the saints always believed the Holy Ghost to be part of the Godhead. This is evidenced in the very same section of Lectures on Faith for we read: 

Also, the second to last question in Lecture 5, "Do the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit constitute the Godhead? They do."

 

 

Thank you for the other links. Yes. I saw the question you reference (#18). Would you comment

on question 6 posed on page 57:

 

6. How many personages are there in the Godhead?

Two. the Father and Son.

 

This is also repeated on page 57.

 

Jim

[janderich]

Thank you for the other links. Yes. I saw the question you reference (#18). Would you comment

on question 6 posed on page 57:

 

6. How many personages are there in the Godhead?

Two. the Father and Son.

 

This is also repeated on page 57.

 

Jim

Sure, Joseph Smith in 1844 said, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods" (TPJS p 370). Is Joseph mistaken? Did he preach two God's at one time and three at another and then claim he did not? Or is there something we don't understand about the Godhead.

 

I find it a little ironic that many believe Joseph's doctrine on the matter changed. Could it be true that he who saw God the Father and his Son did not understand about the Godhead? And that we who have seen next to nothing about the heavens know more than he did? Why then are the heavens not open to us as they were to him? Perhaps it is we who don't understand. 

 

In Joseph's writings the word "spirit" means a number of different things. For instance he said, "I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man - the immortal part because it has no beginning. ...God never had the power to create the spirit [individual, entity] of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle" (TPJS 354). First, Joseph distinguishes between the mortal and the immortal part of the mind. This immortal part, according to Joseph, had no beginning. He also calls it intelligence and then uses the word "spirit" to mean that which defines an entity.

 

Next, I would ask, Who has seen the Holy Ghost? In all of scripture and in modern day revelation has anyone seen the Holy Ghost?  (Be careful here about Nephi's experience, did he see the Holy Ghost or the spirit of the Lord?) In short few today understand who the Holy Ghost is. Some have gone far afield saying he is Heavenly Mother such is not the case. If you don't understand the Holy Ghost then I submit you do not understand the Godhead.

 

I believe this fifth lecture simply defines our path to become as God. The Father, a person of spirit; the Son, a person of tabernacle; the Holy Spirit their mind. We have a part in the same, "As the Son partakes of the fullness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fullness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the the Father and the Son are one, so, in like manner, the saints are to be one in them."

[ERayR]

Yes, you have to or you don't, admit Joseph taught God as a spirit.

 

Of course he is.  Spirit inseparably combined with a physical body of flesh and bone.

[theplains]

Sure, Joseph Smith in 1844 said, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods" (TPJS p 370). Is Joseph mistaken? Did he preach two God's at one time and three at another and then claim he did not? Or is there something we don't understand about the Godhead.

 

I have heard that too, but I was seeking some information on when exactly did the LDS Church

change their stance on the number of personages in the Godhead.  Up to 1921, the Lectures

on Faith (from what I heard) was the 'doctrine' part of the Doctrine and Covenants. It clearly

states the Godhead consists of only two personages.  

 

Maybe the 'when' and 'who' aspects of the change were not officially recorded.

 

Thanks,

Jim

[janderich]

I have heard that too, but I was seeking some information on when exactly did the LDS Church

change their stance on the number of personages in the Godhead.  Up to 1921, the Lectures

on Faith (from what I heard) was the 'doctrine' part of the Doctrine and Covenants. It clearly

states the Godhead consists of only two personages.  

 

Maybe the 'when' and 'who' aspects of the change were not officially recorded.

 

Thanks,

Jim

Well the entire post I just made got deleted but let me try and give a quick overview. 

 

As I said earlier, I believe it was the nature of the Godhead, specifically the Holy Ghost that has been questioned and changed. In Sunstone Magazine there is an interesting article on the topic:

 

Perhaps the most important doctrine addressed was the doctrine of the Godhead, which was

reconstructed beginning in 1893 and 1894. D uring that year Jam es E. Talm age, president of Latter-day Saints

University and later president and professor of geology at the University of Utah, gave a series of lectures

on the Articles of Faith to the theological class of LDSU. In the fall of 1898 the First Presidency asked him

to rewrite the lectures and present them for approval as an exposition of Church doctrines. In the process,

Talmage reconsidered and reconstructed the doctrine of the Holy Ghost. 

 

In response to questions raised by Talmage’s lectures, George Q. Cannon, “commenting on the

ambiguity existing in our printed works concerning the nature of character of the Holy Ghost, expressed his

opinion that the Holy Ghost was in reality a person, in the image of the other mem bers of the Godhead--a

man in form and figure; and that what we often speak of as the Holy Ghost is in reality but the power or

influence of the spirit.” The First Presidency on that occasion, however, “deemed it wise to say as little as

possible on this as on other disputed subjects.”27

 

In 1894 Talmage published an article in the Juvenile Instructor elaborating on his and Cannon’s views.

He incorporated the article almost verbatim into his manuscript for the Articles of Faith, and the Presidency

approved the article virtually w ithout change in 1898. 

 

The impact of the Articles of Faith on doctrinal exposition within the Church seems to have been

enormous. Some doctrinal works like B. H. Roberts’s 1888 volume The Gospel were quite allegorical on the

nature of God. Christ, and the Holy Ghost. In the 1901 edition, after the publication of the Articles of Faith,

Roberts explicitly revised his view of the Godhead, modifying his discussion and incorporating Talmage’s

more literal interpretation of the Holy Ghost.28  http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Reconstruction_of_Mormon_Doctrine_Alexander.pdf

Then of course the Lectures were removed in 1921. Joseph Fielding Smith gave these reasons:

 

 

a) They were not received as revelations by the prophet Joseph Smith. b) They are instructions relative to the general subject of faith. They are explanations of this principle but not doctrine. c) They are not complete as to their teachings regarding the Godhead. More complete instructions on the point of doctrine are given in section 130 of the 1876 and all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants. d) It was thought by Elder James E. Talmage, chairman, and other members of the committee who were responsible for their omission that to avoid confusion and contention on this vital point of belief, it would be better not to have them bound in the same volume as the commandments or revelations which make up the Doctrine and Covenants.

Note, that Talmage was the chairman of the committee who requested to remove the Lectures. It seems clear to me that the nature of the Holy Ghost was at the heart of the matter.

[JLHPROF]

Sure, Joseph Smith in 1844 said, "I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods" (TPJS p 370). Is Joseph mistaken? Did he preach two God's at one time and three at another and then claim he did not? Or is there something we don't understand about the Godhead.

 

 

Of course he preached two Gods at one time and three at another.  (As for the claim he did not, that is just down to semantics).

Pre-Kirtland (and up to the LoF) Joseph was still learning the nature of the godhead and being influenced in his thinking by new converts (such as Sidney Rigdon who may have actually written some of the LOF, and the other Campbellites).

 

From the time of the first vision Joseph knew and taught that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ were separate entitities because he had seen them.  He had had no such revelation concerning the nature of the Holy Ghost.  The term Holy Ghost was used interchangeably with Holy Spirit or Spirit of God and what we today call the "Gift of the Holy Ghost".

 

By the end of his life in 1844 Joseph was clearly teaching that not only was the Holy Ghost a personage, a member of the Godhead, but that he also had another role of witness or testator in the administration of our creation.

 

So WHEN did Joseph come to understand the nature of the Holy Ghost better - sometime between Kirtland and Nauvoo.  Isn't that what a restoration is for?  Restoring more light and truth?

Edited June 20, 2014 by JLHPROF

[Ahab]

All spirits are persons, aka personages, including the Holy Spirit, and he became hid own person at the moment that our Mother in heaven gave birth to his spirit in heaven. Before that moment he was a part of our Mother's person combined with something from his Father in heaven, and all of their parents before them, and that is why we refer to him, and them, and us too, as an eternal being which we refer to as God.

[janderich]

Of course he preached two Gods at one time and three at another.  (As for the claim he did not, that is just down to semantics).

Pre-Kirtland (and up to the LoF) Joseph was still learning the nature of the godhead and being influenced in his thinking by new converts (such as Sidney Rigdon who may have actually written some of the LOF, and the other Campbellites).

 

From the time of the first vision Joseph knew and taught that Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ were separate entitities because he had seen them.  He had had no such revelation concerning the nature of the Holy Ghost.  The term Holy Ghost was used interchangeably with Holy Spirit or Spirit of God and what we today call the "Gift of the Holy Ghost".

 

By the end of his life in 1844 Joseph was clearly teaching that not only was the Holy Ghost a personage, a member of the Godhead, but that he also had another role of witness or testator in the administration of our creation.

 

So WHEN did Joseph come to understand the nature of the Holy Ghost better - sometime between Kirtland and Nauvoo.  Isn't that what a restoration is for?  Restoring more light and truth?

Your statement about changing teachings would be fine, and indeed is on things like the multiplicity of Gods. But Joseph explicitly states that he always taught that there were three separate beings in the Godhead. You appear to disagree with Joseph on this point. Further, it also appears Joseph accepted the Lectures on Faith since they were added to the D&C and not removed until 1921, so the changing teachings statement falls flat. 

 

If Joseph restored knowledge regarding the nature of the Holy Ghost between Kirtland and Nauvoo where is the evidence?

[janderich]

???

[JLHPROF]

Your statement about changing teachings would be fine, and indeed is on things like the multiplicity of Gods. But Joseph explicitly states that he always taught that there were three separate beings in the Godhead. You appear to disagree with Joseph on this point. Further, it also appears Joseph accepted the Lectures on Faith since they were added to the D&C and not removed until 1921, so the changing teachings statement falls flat. 

 

If Joseph restored knowledge regarding the nature of the Holy Ghost between Kirtland and Nauvoo where is the evidence?

 

His teachings are the evidence.  The LoF (which were probably mostly written by Sidney Rigdon) contain much truth but there was no understanding of much doctrine at the time they were written.  They remained part of the D&C because they still to this day contain much truth (especially the 6th which reads differently from the others and was probably written by Joseph).

But of course Joseph came to know more.  It is no different from Joseph's learning of the origin of God as contained in the King Follett discourse and that overruling any previous teachings on God.

 

As for Joseph's statement that he had never taught anything different, I just consider that a bit of hyperbole on his part.  It neither changes nor impacts the value of his teachings.  Nor does it change what obviously shows progression in his teaching from Kirtland, through the trial of Missouri, to the outpouring of knowledge revealed in Nauvoo. 

[theplains]

All spirits are persons, aka personages, including the Holy Spirit, and he became hid own person at the moment that our Mother in heaven gave birth to his spirit in heaven.

 

Is it a teaching of the LDS Church that the Holy Spirit is a child of heavenly parents

or does it just speculate on his identity?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

Is it a teaching of the LDS Church that the Holy Spirit is a child of heavenly parents

or does it just speculate on his identity?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

The Church refuses to speculate officially on the identity of the spirit personage known as the Holy Ghost.  But unofficial theories abound, and there are officially accepted doctrines that can be applied towards the theories and speculations.