Rivers Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 (edited) Not according to the original wording of D&C 130:22 This is the original wording recorded by Willard Richards: Quote the Father has a body of esh & 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. Brigham Young had it altered before it was canonized to what we read today: "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." I just learned this from reading Givens' Wrestling the Angel. Now I'm trying to make sense of why the change was made. Edited June 23, 2016 by Rivers
Ahab Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 Saying the Holy Spirit dwells in our heart when he, as a personage of spirit, dwells in our bodies with our spirit would be imprecise and also at least a little misleading. It's not as if his spirit gets all scrunched up into only the shape of our heart. He occupies our whole body with our spirit, just as our spirit occupies our whole body, rather than his person being limited to living only in our heart. What's amazing to me is that he can be within more than only one person at a particular time, as if his spirit doesn't have any limit to how many people's bodies he can be occupied in at a time. Comparable to how the sun in our solar system is in one place and yet it's influence can be felt across a much larger area.
JLHPROF Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 I would imagine the change was made as so many confuse the Holy Spirit (the personage) and the Holy Spirit (the spirit of God). The personage does not dwell within our hearts. We are not possessed by another entity. That goes against so many doctrines. Possession is the work of the adversary. But the Holy Spirit does communicate to our "hearts". But this is fascinating - Now I want to view the JSP on this. 1
Duncan Posted June 22, 2016 Posted June 22, 2016 isn't it obvious?! if he physically lives in me then he isn't in Sammy Schmuck from Saskatchewan and that's not fair. 1
Rivers Posted June 23, 2016 Author Posted June 23, 2016 4 hours ago, Duncan said: isn't it obvious?! if he physically lives in me then he isn't in Sammy Schmuck from Saskatchewan and that's not fair. I've always felt that way myself. I figured that maybe the Holy Ghost was just moving around really really fast. Joseph Smith's original words make more sense. 2
JLHPROF Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Curious why this is well known to have been changed by a historian in the 1850s and is contrary to several of Joseph's teachings why it hasn't been removed or corrected from D&C 130. Does anyone know why this was never fixed? And it wasn't Brigham Young as far as I can tell- Orson Pratt was given the assignment to select teachings of Joseph Smith for inclusion in the 1876 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants (see the December 1984 Ensign article The Story of the Doctrine & Covenants). In doing so, he relied on the compilations of Joseph's diaries and teachings by church historians (see link below) for details on who these historians were and when they wrote). Joseph himself wrote very little of his diary; it was actually kept by various people assigned to do so. Church historians compiled these various accounts into a cohesive whole (changing the text to the first person to appear as though Joseph had written it) and it formed the basis of the volumes of History of Church eventually edited by B.H. Roberts -- the ones most of us are familiar with. Leo Hawkins was the historian who compiled the account that includes this scriptural passage from D&C 130. He added the sentence in question about the Holy Ghost dwelling in us, which contradicts what Joseph taught as recorded contemporaneously by his secretary.
Spammer Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 8 hours ago, Rivers said: I've always felt that way myself. I figured that maybe the Holy Ghost was just moving around really really fast. Joseph Smith's original words make more sense. Those of us who worship the Holy Trinity believe that the timeless, infinite God is everywhere present and fills all things. God is without limit and contains all of time within Himself, so the Holy Spirit can dwell simultaneously in every human person - past, present and future. Not interested in debating the point with anyone, just thought I'd share to illustrate differences. 1
Storm Rider Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 Hello Spammer, this topic is one that has been addressed in books that could fill great rooms stacked from floor to ceiling. It is easy to talk past one another even when we say the same thing. To me the Holy Ghost's influence may be felt by every human on the earth all at the same time. In such an event the Holy Spirit would not have been expanded or reduced and yet each heart would have been touched. I think, in this aspect, we are saying the same thing.
CV75 Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, Rivers said: Not according to the original wording of D&C 130:22 This is the original wording recorded by Willard Richards: Brigham Young had it altered before it was canonized to what we read today: "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." I just learned this from reading Givens' Wrestling the Angel. Now I'm trying to make sense of why the change was made. I’ll take a stab at this (for the sake of discussion). Some of it hinges on the difference between what it means to “dwell in us” (as our spirits dwell in us) and “dwell in our hearts” (as our spirit’s thoughts and intents do, or the influence we invite into our inner being does). We all know a personage of spirit can and does dwell in us (our own), and sometimes, contrary to the holy order of things, more than one. Our spirit is the entity that drives what influence dwells in our hearts, or innermost being. While the Light of Christ came from Him while in His spirit form, then came from Him in the mortal flesh, and now continues to come from Him in His resurrected form, the primary source of this power remains His “personage of spirit.” The Light of Christ itself is not a personage of spirit, and doesn’t “dwell in our heart” because, as the power of God emanating from God, is more ubiquitous than that. It is in (and above, though, round, etc.) all things, fills the immensity of space, and powers (and empowers) a myriad of functions. The Holy Ghost cannot dwell in our heart because that is not how a personage of spirit and his host element connect. The Holy Ghost could “dwell in us” just as any other personage of spirit could, but that is against the order. He does instead “dwell in us" as in "our hearts” in the sense of being a constant companion and influencing our personage of spirit through His power of spiritual communication, cleansing, enhancing, etc. to the "inner man" ("For man is spirit" -- D&C 93:33). He can only do this, as Christ does, as a personage of spirit, for that is the only entity from which the power of God is personally manifest to His children. Edited June 23, 2016 by CV75
RevTestament Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 16 hours ago, Rivers said: Not according to the original wording of D&C 130:22 This is the original wording recorded by Willard Richards: Brigham Young had it altered before it was canonized to what we read today: "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." I just learned this from reading Givens' Wrestling the Angel. Now I'm trying to make sense of why the change was made. I think the answer lies in verse 3: Doctrine and Covenants 130:3 3 John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false. The same teaching applies to the H.S. He does not dwell in our hearts - that is a figure of speech. He communicates with our soul.
Spammer Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 1 hour ago, Storm Rider said: Hello Spammer, this topic is one that has been addressed in books that could fill great rooms stacked from floor to ceiling. It is easy to talk past one another even when we say the same thing. To me the Holy Ghost's influence may be felt by every human on the earth all at the same time. In such an event the Holy Spirit would not have been expanded or reduced and yet each heart would have been touched. I think, in this aspect, we are saying the same thing. Would Mormons say the Holy Ghost himself (not just his influence) is present simultaneously in every point in space and time - past, present and future? I think that's the key difference.
stemelbow Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 3 minutes ago, Spammer said: Would Mormons say the Holy Ghost himself (not just his influence) is present simultaneously in every point in space and time - past, present and future? I think that's the key difference. I think LDS for the majority would respond to that question with a "that doesn't even make sense. If God is simultaneous everywhere then there'd be no room at all for something bad to happen. But bad things happen so obviously God is not there. He's sitting back somewhere else."
Spammer Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I think LDS for the majority would respond to that question with a "that doesn't even make sense. If God is simultaneous everywhere then there'd be no room at all for something bad to happen. But bad things happen so obviously God is not there. He's sitting back somewhere else." Yes, I think that follows from the LDS teaching that the Father has a body of flesh and bones. For us, God is immaterial. He can be simultaneously present everywhere and 'everywhen' because he takes no up space. In fact, we believe His immaterial presence underpins materiality, holding it perpetually in existence from moment to moment. If God suddenly ceased to exist, the material creation would wink out of existence. Ex nihilo, etc. To Storm Rider's point, I think he's correct. The practical effects of our divergent beliefs about the divine nature are likely the same. The Holy Ghost's influence is present and felt simultaneously by every human on earth. The key difference is that we don't believe that God (the Holy Ghost) is localized. We believe God Himself is omnipresent, not just His influence. Edited June 23, 2016 by Spammer
Storm Rider Posted June 23, 2016 Posted June 23, 2016 26 minutes ago, Spammer said: Would Mormons say the Holy Ghost himself (not just his influence) is present simultaneously in every point in space and time - past, present and future? I think that's the key difference. I think you splitting hairs. Differentiate the Holy Spirit's presence, his influence, from his being - I don't see a difference. Don't confuse "presence" in this context with the Catholic term "presence" as in the Eucharist. Yet, the Holy Spirit is in me; in you. I just would not say his being is in me - this describes a fullness of his being - his actual entire being that I think misleads/misguides the actual process or function of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is everywhere and is not limited as you say be time or space. When I speak of God I am typically speaking about God the Father or his Son, but I don't often address the Holy Spirit as God (in my speaking), yet I fully recognize the Godhead as consisting of all three beings. I believe each member of the Godhead can be localized or speak from one space, have form, but the Holy Spirit is manifestly different from both the Father and the Son. Jesus obviously exists as a resurrected being and has space, yet this does not limit his Spirit. The unique belief is that we also believe the Father has a similar body. The Holy Spirit is different and yet is God. We both recognize that the doctrine of the Trinity and the teachings about the Godhead have many similarities, but are clearly not the equivalent. Yet, imo, we are talking about the same God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Calm Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 If you want to quickly raise your post count, you need to do it in Social Hall if you aren't willing to take the time for substance.
waveslider Posted August 5, 2016 Posted August 5, 2016 On 6/22/2016 at 11:11 AM, Rivers said: Not according to the original wording of D&C 130:22 This is the original wording recorded by Willard Richards: Brigham Young had it altered before it was canonized to what we read today: "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." I just learned this from reading Givens' Wrestling the Angel. Now I'm trying to make sense of why the change was made. How do you know that what Givens said was true?
Recommended Posts