Folk Doctrines about the Holy Ghost

[pogi]

Growing up in the Church, it was explained to me that the gift of the Holy Ghost makes the spirit available to us "always" if we are obedient, whereas those who have not received baptism and confirmation can only have the Holy Ghost "occasionally" with them.   The example that was always used is that when the missionaries share their message with investigators they can have the spirit with them in that moment to testify of truth, but other than that, they shouldn't expect much. 

This does not jive with my understanding of the Holy Ghost and His role which is primarily to testify of the Father and the Son, and to sanctify through the baptism of fire.  I interpret that to mean that the Holy Ghost (even for baptized members) is an occasional experience.  The baptism of fire being a special sanctifying experience for those who "receive the Holy Ghost" yet not necessarily received by all baptized members. Are not all other experiences of "the spirit" related to the Light of Christ?  The D&C seems to suggest that the role of the light of Christ is much more expansive than the role of the Holy Ghost in terms of power, knowledge, learning right from wrong, being guided in safety, personal revelation, endowments etc.  Is this not the case?  I ask because this 'doctrine" is still fairly prevalent in our church that we can have the Holy Ghost more often than others.  This is part of the reason that Navidad has a beef with our church.  He seems to think that his experience with the spirit is no less frequent or powerful than ours...and I think he is right.

The question is, where did this idea come from and why is it still taught? The only scriptural source that I could think of is the sacramental prayer, where it says "...that they might always have his spirit to be with them...".  First of all, is this speaking of the Holy Ghost or the light of Christ.  I could make a pretty good argument that it is actually speaking of the light of Christ (which is frequently referred to as "the spirit" or "His spirit" etc.), but I think most think of it as referring to the Holy Ghost.  

What think ye, do we have the Holy Ghost more in our lives than others?  What about the light of Christ?  Aren't those who are not baptized into the covenant experiencing the light of Christ equally, as they seek to do his will and follow their conscience to the best of their ability?  Is it time we stop teaching this folk doctrine which is extremely invalidating of other faith experiences?

[HappyJackWagon]

This came up in class a few weeks ago. One person claimed that only those who are baptized and have the gift of the HG can have "constant companionship" and that non-members merely feel the light of Christ. Someone else challenged that assertion, stating that all of God's children can feel the HG, but they merely don't have "constant" companionship. Another person then said that there is no such thing as constant companionship because the gift is conditional.

Personally, I don't find a ton of value in the idea of a "constant companion" which is only constant on condition. IOW- it's not "constant". So if the HG is meant to testify of truth and be a comforter, then it seems it would be just as valuable outside of the church as it is inside. So I'm left to think that the concept of "constant companion" functions to distinguish us verse them. It makes us special...better...more worthy...whatever.

At least in my little class amongst well-seasoned, faithful members, there wasn't a ton of agreement on who has access to the HG.

[bluebell]

I was told that the difference between experiencing the Holy Ghost and having the gift of the Holy Ghost is the difference between lightening and the sun.  One shows up every now and then and illuminates the world for a second before retreating.  The other is a constant presence.

I'm not sure how good that analogy is either.  

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, pogi said:

Growing up in the Church, it was explained to me that the gift of the Holy Ghost makes the spirit available to us "always" if we are obedient, whereas those who have not received baptism and confirmation can only have the Holy Ghost "occasionally" with them.   The example that was always used is that when the missionaries share their message with investigators they can have the spirit with them in that moment to testify of truth, but other than that, they shouldn't expect much. 

This does not jive with my understanding of the Holy Ghost and His role which is primarily to testify of the Father and the Son, and to sanctify through the baptism of fire.  I interpret that to mean that the Holy Ghost (even for baptized members) is an occasional experience.  The baptism of fire being a special sanctifying experience for those who "receive the Holy Ghost" yet not necessarily received by all baptized members. Are not all other experiences of "the spirit" related to the Light of Christ?  The D&C seems to suggest that the role of the light of Christ is much more expansive than the role of the Holy Ghost in terms of power, knowledge, learning right from wrong, being guided in safety, personal revelation, endowments etc.  Is this not the case?  I ask because this 'doctrine" is still fairly prevalent in our church that we can have the Holy Ghost more often than others.  This is part of the reason that Navidad has a beef with our church.  He seems to think that his experience with the spirit is no less frequent or powerful than ours...and I think he is right.

The question is, where did this idea come from and why is it still taught? The only scriptural source that I could think of is the sacramental prayer, where it says "...that they might always have his spirit to be with them...".  First of all, is this speaking of the Holy Ghost or the light of Christ.  I could make a pretty good argument that it is actually speaking of the light of Christ (which is frequently referred to as "the spirit" or "His spirit" etc.), but I think most think of it as referring to the Holy Ghost.  

What think ye, do we have the Holy Ghost more in our lives than others?  What about the light of Christ?  Aren't those who are not baptized into the covenant experiencing the light of Christ equally, as they seek to do his will and follow their conscience to the best of their ability?  Is it time we stop teaching this folk doctrine which is extremely invalidating of other faith experiences?

I think someone with the Gift of the Holy Ghost can have by right, if he qualifies by keeping the commandments, more experiences with the Holy Ghost than someone without it. Possessing the Gift, he can obtain that baptism of fire and that constant companionship with which he can cultivate the spiritual gifts, receive revelations, become purified and sanctified, and receive the Holy Spirit of Promise, none of which someone without the Gift cannot cultivate. See the last paragraph here: https://www.lds.org/topics/holy-ghost?lang=eng

The Lamanites referred to in 3 Nephi 9:20 were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, but knew it not. Perhaps they had been baptized in water and were confirmed, but did not live up to their full privileges until they exhibited sufficient faith; or more likely, they needed to be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost before they could know they had been baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost and proceed or continue to progress as converted souls.

Because the light of Christ and the witness of the Holy Ghost lead people to Christ and His first principles and ordinances of the Gospel, there is only so much they can obtain – as wonderful an extent that they might obtain -- without receiving the Gift by laying on of hands.

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This came up in class a few weeks ago. One person claimed that only those who are baptized and have the gift of the HG can have "constant companionship" and that non-members merely feel the light of Christ. Someone else challenged that assertion, stating that all of God's children can feel the HG, but they merely don't have "constant" companionship. Another person then said that there is no such thing as constant companionship because the gift is conditional.

Personally, I don't find a ton of value in the idea of a "constant companion" which is only constant on condition. IOW- it's not "constant". So if the HG is meant to testify of truth and be a comforter, then it seems it would be just as valuable outside of the church as it is inside. So I'm left to think that the concept of "constant companion" functions to distinguish us verse them. It makes us special...better...more worthy...whatever.

At least in my little class amongst well-seasoned, faithful members, there wasn't a ton of agreement on who has access to the HG.

I think "constant' means faithful, reliable, true, trustworthy, dependable, etc.; inasmuch as it means "continual" I think it is only as continual as the saint can qualify and the Lord's will grant in His wisdom to impart; and often it can be quite literally continual for the worthy but they may simply not be fully aware, as the Lamanites in 3 Nephi 9:20.

[pogi]

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think someone with the Gift of the Holy Ghost can have by right, if he qualifies by keeping the commandments, more experiences with the Holy Ghost than someone without it. Possessing the Gift, he can obtain that baptism of fire and that constant companionship with which he can cultivate the spiritual gifts, receive revelations, become purified and sanctified, and receive the Holy Spirit of Promise, none of which someone without the Gift cannot cultivate. See the last paragraph here: https://www.lds.org/topics/holy-ghost?lang=eng

 

The Lamanites referred to in 3 Nephi 9:20 were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, but knew it not. Perhaps they had been baptized in water and were confirmed, but did not live up to their full privileges until they exhibited sufficient faith; or more likely, they needed to be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost before they could know they had been baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost and proceed or continue to progress as converted souls.

 

Because the light of Christ and the witness of the Holy Ghost lead people to Christ and His first principles and ordinances of the Gospel, there is only so much they can obtain – as wonderful an extent that they might obtain -- without receiving the Gift by laying on of hands.

Thanks for your thoughts,

Yes, this paragraph that you referred to is exactly what I am talking about:

Quote

The gift of the Holy Ghost is different from the influence of the Holy Ghost. Before baptism, a person can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost from time to time and through that influence can receive a testimony of the truth. After receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, a person has the right to the constant companionship of that member of the Godhead if he or she keeps the commandments.

What is the scriptural reference for this teaching?  Where is the revelation?  

To me, the purpose of the "gift of the Holy Ghost" is the sanctification through the baptism of fire after receiving the gift.  It also qualifies us to receive the "comforter", which is the promise of eternal life (D&C 88:4)  I don't see any scriptural reference to the gift leading to a constant companionship. 

Edited August 31, 2017 by pogi

[mapman]

The Book of Mormon talks about being baptized by the Holy Ghost and having the Holy Ghost poured out more abundantly upon the church members after baptism, so I'm pretty sure that's where it comes from, though talking about "constant companionship" might not be entirely accurate. I think it more meant that being baptized by the Holy Ghost means that the Gifts of the Spirit are made available to all the members.

Mosiah 18:10, 13: "Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world."

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, mapman said:

The Book of Mormon talks about being baptized by the Holy Ghost and having the Holy Ghost poured out more abundantly upon the church members after baptism, so I'm pretty sure that's where it comes from, though talking about "constant companionship" might not be entirely accurate. I think it more meant that being baptized by the Holy Ghost means that the Gifts of the Spirit are made available to all the members.

Mosiah 18:10, 13: "Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

And when he had said these words, the Spirit of the Lord was upon him, and he said: Helam, I baptize thee, having authority from the Almighty God, as a testimony that ye have entered into a covenant to serve him until you are dead as to the mortal body; and may the Spirit of the Lord be poured out upon you; and may he grant unto you eternal life, through the redemption of Christ, whom he has prepared from the foundation of the world."

Yes, I think this is partly where the confusion comes from.  Is the phrase "the Spirit of the Lord" here speaking of the Holy Ghost or the light of Christ?  I interpret it as the light of Christ according to my understanding of the roles of each.  And isn't it true that anyone (member or not) who begins to more abundantly serve him and keep his commandments, will more abundantly have his Spirit (light of Christ) upon them?

Quote

In the scriptures, the Light of Christ is sometimes called the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, or the Light of Life.

https://www.lds.org/topics/light-of-christ?lang=eng

 

Edited August 31, 2017 by pogi

[mapman]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, I think this is partly where the confusion comes from.  Is the phrase "the Spirit of the Lord" here speaking of the Holy Ghost or the light of Christ?  I interpret it as the light of Christ according to my understanding of the roles of each.  And isn't it true that anyone (member or not) who begins to more abundantly serve him and keep his commandments, will more abundantly have his Spirit (light of Christ) upon them?

 

I would have assumed that he was talking about the Holy Ghost, but I guess I'm not really sure about what the difference is.

I'm sure people outside of the church can become more in tune with the Spirit as they grow closer to God. I think that when you get baptized into the church, it is an important step closer to God and a sign of obedience, so the spirit will be poured out more abundantly than how it was before (however much that was).

I was taught that the Gift of the Holy Ghost means that we are sanctified from our sins and that we can have Gifts of the Spirit. I'm interested on what your thoughts are on that. Can non-members be sanctified by the Holy Ghost or have Gifts of the Spirit?

Edited August 31, 2017 by mapman

[pogi]

20 minutes ago, mapman said:

I would have assumed that he was talking about the Holy Ghost, but I guess I'm not really sure about what the difference is.

I think most Mormons would interpret it the way you do, simply because we have been conditioned to think of "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of the Lord" as the Holy Ghost.  However, that is not the only way the scriptures use those phrases.  I believe that their use in the scriptures, more often than not, refer to the Light of Christ.  I think we as a Church undervalue the role of the light of Christ in our lives and overestimate the Holy Ghost.  When you compare the defined roles of each in the scriptures, it is clear that the Light of Christ plays a much more prevalent, day-to-day role in our lives.  The role of the light of Christ is primarily mentioned in D&C 88 and 93.  It is the power of God, the law by which all things are governed, it is the light which enlightens our minds and gives us understanding, it is the source of revelation, it is everywhere and we are constantly interacting with it. 

The role of the Holy Ghost is outlined in 3 Nephi 11 (testifier of the Father and the Son specifically, but not of all truth generally speaking - that is the role of the Light of Christ), it is a "comforter".  D&C 88:4 states that the comforter of the Holy Ghost is the "promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom".  Only those who receive their calling and election made sure experience this role of comforter of the Holy Ghost, and become capable of denying the Holy Ghost.  I don't know the other references but it is also spoken of as a sanctifier through fire (baptism of fire), which I understand to be a singular experience and sacrament of baptism.  Other than that, all those warm fuzzies and burning in the bossom that we feel (and all other faiths feel) is the light of Christ. 

42 minutes ago, mapman said:

I was taught that the Gift of the Holy Ghost means that we are sanctified from our sins and that we can have Gifts of the Spirit. I'm interested on what your thoughts are on that. Can non-members be sanctified by the Holy Ghost or have Gifts of the Spirit?

I think every man, women, and child is endowed with gifts of the spirit - to know Christ, to believe in Him, healing, tongues, faith, knowledge, wisdom, etc. They are not unique to Mormons.  I also suspect that these spiritual gifts to be related to the light of Christ and not the Holy Ghost as is commonly assumed.  The only experiences of the Holy Ghost which are unique to Mormons are the baptism of fire and the comforter (promise of eternal life - calling and election made sure).  All other people can receive the witness of the Father and the Son through the Holy Ghost.  Other than that, I can't think of any  roles of the Holy Ghost which are outlined in scripture. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

 

Thanks for your thoughts,

Yes, this paragraph that you referred to is exactly what I am talking about:

What is the scriptural reference for this teaching?  Where is the revelation?  

To me, the sole purpose of the "gift of the Holy Ghost" is the sanctification through the baptism of fire after receiving the gift. I don't see any scriptural reference to the gift leading to a constant companionship. 

I think it comes from D&C 121: 26, 43 and 46.

Verse 26 refers to a specific knowledge or kind of knowledge (revelations regarding the last times and the “setting forth upon” – the Holy Spirit of Promise – see verses 27-29) that comes only by way of the "gift of the Holy Ghost" that even the Prophet needs but which is also enjoyed by “all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ”.

Verse 43 speaks of being moved upon by the Holy Ghost in connection with the administrative authority, power and influence of the priesthood in correcting someone who has erred. One must have the laying on of hands for both the gift and the priesthood, the gift coming first. The surrounding verses describe how one must act, but he cannot fully act this way without the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Verse 46 gets around to the constant companionship in connection with the gift as discussed in verse 26 and the influence by virtue of the gift and the priesthood in verse 43. We obtain this and other divine graces by being full of charity and having virtue garnish our thoughts unceasingly (verse 45). Naturally one hand washes the other!

Those who have not proceeded through the first principles and ordinances of the gospel cannot reach the point of continuing revelation (as opposed to a witness of truth), being set forth upon, have priesthood (whether by conferral, ordination or endowment, covering both men and women), or the resulting constant companionship as they cultivate charity and virtue.

Edited August 31, 2017 by CV75

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it comes from D&C 121: 26, 43 and 46.

Verse 26 refers to a specific knowledge or kind of knowledge (revelations regarding the last times and the “setting forth upon” – the Holy Spirit of Promise – see verses 27-29) that comes only by way of the "gift of the Holy Ghost" that even the Prophet needs but which is also enjoyed by “all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ”.

Verse 43 speaks of being moved upon by the Holy Ghost in connection with the administrative authority, power and influence of the priesthood in correcting someone who has erred. One must have the laying on of hands for both the gift and the priesthood, the gift coming first. The surrounding verses describe how one must act, but he cannot fully act this way without the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Verse 46 gets around to the constant companionship in connection with the gift as discussed in verse 26 and the influence by virtue of the gift and the priesthood in verse 43. We obtain this and other divine graces by being full of charity and having virtue garnish our thoughts unceasingly (verse 45). Naturally one hand washes the other!

Those who have not proceeded through the first principles and ordinances of the gospel cannot reach the point of continuing revelation (as opposed to a witness of truth), being set forth upon, have priesthood (whether by conferral, ordination or endowment, covering both men and women), or the resulting constant companionship as they cultivate charity and virtue.

Thanks for the reference.  That is a good catch.  Vs 76 does clearly speak of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost:

Quote

  46 The Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and thy scepter an unchanging scepter of righteousness and truth; and thy dominion shall be an everlasting dominion, and without compulsory means it shall flow unto thee forever and ever.

It seems to me though that this promise of constant companionship is related to the role of the Spirit as a "comforter", i.e the promise of eternal life.  Because in this verse it speaks of the constant companionship being related to the promise of an everlasting dominion, or eternal life. Is the constant companionship then reserved for those who have their calling and election made sure?  That is how I interpret this.  While every member has access to this blessing through the gift of the Holy Ghost, I don't think that it received by the average typical member.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thanks for the reference.  That is a good catch.  Vs 76 does clearly speak of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost:

It seems to me though that this promise of constant companionship is related to the role of the Spirit as a "comforter", i.e the promise of eternal life.  Because in this verse it speaks of the constant companionship being related to the promise of an everlasting dominion, or eternal life. Is the constant companionship then reserved for those who have their calling and election made sure?  That is how I interpret this.  While every member has access to this blessing through the gift of the Holy Ghost, I don't think that it received by the average typical member.

I don't read the verse that way.  I don't see the promise of constant companionship tied to the promise that the scepter will be an unchanging scepter, etc.  I read them as individual promises tied to righteousness.

[pogi]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't read the verse that way.  I don't see the promise of constant companionship tied to the promise that the scepter will be an unchanging scepter, etc.  I read them as individual promises tied to righteousness.

I can see how it could be read either way.  To me, it appears that all these things are related to the same promise, as in "if ye do these things, the Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and.....". So I don't think we have a diffinitive answer on this one.  One thing I CAN say with extreme confidence is that I am yet to meet a Mormon who would claim to have the spirit always with them...who never lose their cool, or act, think, or speak in ways which offend the sensitivities of the spirit, causing it to withdraw from them. Which is a second reason why I lean more towards my interpretation.

Edited August 31, 2017 by pogi

[CV75]

56 minutes ago, pogi said:

Thanks for the reference.  That is a good catch.  Vs 76 does clearly speak of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost:

It seems to me though that this promise of constant companionship is related to the role of the Spirit as a "comforter", i.e the promise of eternal life.  Because in this verse it speaks of the constant companionship being related to the promise of an everlasting dominion, or eternal life. Is the constant companionship then reserved for those who have their calling and election made sure?  That is how I interpret this.  While every member has access to this blessing through the gift of the Holy Ghost, I don't think that it received by the average typical member.

Fortunately with grace, we don’t have to worry about “average” or “typical,” and the Lord deals only with individuals!

I also see the blessings listed here as progressive: confidence waxing (becoming) strong in the presence of God; doctrine of the priesthood distilling upon the soul; the Holy Ghost as constant companion, a scepter of righteousness and truth; an everlasting dominion flowing unto us forever and ever. I think the Holy Spirit of Promise is in there somewhere between the constant companionship and the dominion, as it isn’t necessary for having a scepter (when symbolizing rulership in the kingdom, or a calling) but is needed for godhood. Of course these blessings can have one expression in mortality and another in eternity, and also in degrees (except for the Holy Spirit of Promise, unless a low degree would be the confidence).

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can see how it could be read either way.  To me, it appears that all these things are related to the same promise, as in "if ye do these things, the Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and.....". So I don't think we have a diffinitive answer on this one.  One thing I CAN say with extreme confidence is that I am yet to meet a Mormon who would claim to have the spirit always with them...who never lose their cool, or act, think, or speak in ways which offend the sensitivities of the spirit, causing it to withdraw from them. Which is a second reason why I lean more towards my interpretation.

People can ignore the constant companionship also, and act as if He isn't there. I'm trying to find the account of a prophet's vision from the early days of the Church where some of the apostles were gathered in prayer but so discouraged they did not see the Lord watching over them, trying to get their attention.

Edited September 1, 2017 by CV75

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can see how it could be read either way.  To me, it appears that all these things are related to the same promise, as in "if ye do these things, the Holy Ghost shall be thy constant companion, and.....". So I don't think we have a diffinitive answer on this one.  One thing I CAN say with extreme confidence is that I am yet to meet a Mormon who would claim to have the spirit always with them...who never lose their cool, or act, think, or speak in ways which offend the sensitivities of the spirit, causing it to withdraw from them. Which is a second reason why I lean more towards my interpretation.

I don't believe that we have to be perfect to have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Such a gift would be worthless to us. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by bluebell

[Michael Sanders]

I used to wrestle with distinguishing between these degrees of the spirit and how they were conferred - especially when I read the account of the faithful Cornelius in Acts 10.  How was it the that the gift of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon these gentiles before baptism?  A sign that God was no "respecter of persons" and that the gentile grafting into the mother tree was underway.  Peter, a devout Jew was initially astonished at this even after God had prepared his heart to understand through a heavenly vision and other infallible proofs.

I wondered how this could be in light of other scriptures about the requirement of baptism befor the conferral of such gifts.  I always chalked it up as the exception to the gospel pattern.  Then I came across a sermon given by Joseph Smith in 1842, where he explained:

Quote

"There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him. Until he obeyed these ordinances and received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, according to the order of God, he could not have healed the sick or commanded an evil spirit to come out of a man, and it obey him."

I've seen many debate that there is a difference between the phrases Holy Ghost vs Holy Spirit even though they are used interchangably in many instances as they have grappled with these finer distinctions.

You may want to peruse, "Joseph Smith's Doctrine of the Holy Spirit Contrasted with Cartwright, Campbell, Hodge, and Finney" by Lynne Wilson of Marquett University.

A pretty comprehensive study.

Mike Sanders

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

What think ye, do we have the Holy Ghost more in our lives than others?  What about the light of Christ?  Aren't those who are not baptized into the covenant experiencing the light of Christ equally, as they seek to do his will and follow their conscience to the best of their ability?  Is it time we stop teaching this folk doctrine which is extremely invalidating of other faith experiences?

Gospel Principles teaches, "A person may be temporarily guided by the Holy Ghost without receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost (see D&C 130:23). However, this guidance will not be continuous unless the person is baptized and receives the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost. We read in Acts 10 that the Roman soldier Cornelius received inspiration from the Holy Ghost so that he knew the gospel of Jesus Christ was true. But Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that if Cornelius had not received baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost would have left him (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 97)."

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-21-the-gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

[mapman]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

I think most Mormons would interpret it the way you do, simply because we have been conditioned to think of "the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of the Lord" as the Holy Ghost.  However, that is not the only way the scriptures use those phrases.  I believe that their use in the scriptures, more often than not, refer to the Light of Christ.  I think we as a Church undervalue the role of the light of Christ in our lives and overestimate the Holy Ghost.  When you compare the defined roles of each in the scriptures, it is clear that the Light of Christ plays a much more prevalent, day-to-day role in our lives.  The role of the light of Christ is primarily mentioned in D&C 88 and 93.  It is the power of God, the law by which all things are governed, it is the light which enlightens our minds and gives us understanding, it is the source of revelation, it is everywhere and we are constantly interacting with it. 

The role of the Holy Ghost is outlined in 3 Nephi 11 (testifier of the Father and the Son specifically, but not of all truth generally speaking - that is the role of the Light of Christ), it is a "comforter".  D&C 88:4 states that the comforter of the Holy Ghost is the "promise which I give unto you of eternal life, even the glory of the celestial kingdom".  Only those who receive their calling and election made sure experience this role of comforter of the Holy Ghost, and become capable of denying the Holy Ghost.  I don't know the other references but it is also spoken of as a sanctifier through fire (baptism of fire), which I understand to be a singular experience and sacrament of baptism.  Other than that, all those warm fuzzies and burning in the bossom that we feel (and all other faiths feel) is the light of Christ. 

I think every man, women, and child is endowed with gifts of the spirit - to know Christ, to believe in Him, healing, tongues, faith, knowledge, wisdom, etc. They are not unique to Mormons.  I also suspect that these spiritual gifts to be related to the light of Christ and not the Holy Ghost as is commonly assumed.  The only experiences of the Holy Ghost which are unique to Mormons are the baptism of fire and the comforter (promise of eternal life - calling and election made sure).  All other people can receive the witness of the Father and the Son through the Holy Ghost.  Other than that, I can't think of any  roles of the Holy Ghost which are outlined in scripture. 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, it has given me things to think about.

Another scripture that is probably relevant is D&C 130:22-23: "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."

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

Growing up in the Church, it was explained to me that the gift of the Holy Ghost makes the spirit available to us "always" if we are obedient, whereas those who have not received baptism and confirmation can only have the Holy Ghost "occasionally" with them.   The example that was always used is that when the missionaries share their message with investigators they can have the spirit with them in that moment to testify of truth, but other than that, they shouldn't expect much. 

This does not jive [jibe] with my understanding of the Holy Ghost and His role which is primarily to testify of the Father and the Son, and to sanctify through the baptism of fire.  I interpret that to mean that the Holy Ghost (even for baptized members) is an occasional experience.  The baptism of fire being a special sanctifying experience for those who "receive the Holy Ghost" yet not necessarily received by all baptized members. Are not all other experiences of "the spirit" related to the Light of Christ?  The D&C seems to suggest that the role of the light of Christ is much more expansive than the role of the Holy Ghost in terms of power, knowledge, learning right from wrong, being guided in safety, personal revelation, endowments etc.  Is this not the case?  I ask because this 'doctrine" is still fairly prevalent in our church that we can have the Holy Ghost more often than others.

Mormons emphasize the Holy Spirit just the way the early Christians did.

9 hours ago, pogi said:

 This is part of the reason that Navidad has a beef with our church.  He seems to think that his experience with the spirit is no less frequent or powerful than ours...and I think he is right.

If he is a Pentecostal or Roman Catholic, he might claim as much or more experience with the Holy Spirit than Mormons, but that is debateable.  Protestants generally, including evangelicals, reject talk of the Holy Spirit as mere "feeling," and are very condemnatory of the Pentecostals for being out of control.

9 hours ago, pogi said:

The question is, where did this idea come from and why is it still taught? The only scriptural source that I could think of is the sacramental prayer, where it says "...that they might always have his spirit to be with them...".  First of all, is this speaking of the Holy Ghost or the light of Christ.  I could make a pretty good argument that it is actually speaking of the light of Christ (which is frequently referred to as "the spirit" or "His spirit" etc.), but I think most think of it as referring to the Holy Ghost.  

What think ye, do we have the Holy Ghost more in our lives than others?  What about the light of Christ?  Aren't those who are not baptized into the covenant experiencing the light of Christ equally, as they seek to do his will and follow their conscience to the best of their ability?  Is it time we stop teaching this folk doctrine which is extremely invalidating of other faith experiences?

The Holy Spirit of Promise is not the light of Christ, but is to be a constant companion of the observant, faithful, baptized Mormon.  It is the primary source of reliable testimony.

[Meerkat]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

 

What think ye, do we have the Holy Ghost more in our lives than others?  What about the light of Christ?  Aren't those who are not baptized into the covenant experiencing the light of Christ equally, as they seek to do his will and follow their conscience to the best of their ability?  Is it time we stop teaching this folk doctrine which is extremely invalidating of other faith experiences?

The Holy Ghost gave me a testimony of Christ before I investigated the LDS Church.  I had a wonderful testimony of the Savior.  I also had a deep desire to worship where God wanted me to.  I attended other churches.  I particularly liked the Pentacostles because they were always praising the Lord and that's how I felt.  But I also felt a desperate and frustrating desire to worship where God wanted me to.  And much as I appreciated the Pentacostles, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarene and Catholics, I received no peace worshiping there.

My wife and I were married in the Presbyterian Church.  We were so head over heels in love, we wrote "till death do us part" out of our vows.  It seemed wrong for us to include it.  We continued to pray about where to worship. Heading off on our honeymoon, I told God that if He wanted us to worship somewhere, He would have to show us because we just couldn't figure it out.

We spent a month in Mexico.  We saw the ruins in Mexico City and other places.  We heard the interesting legend of Quezocoatl and how the Aztec nation was conquered by Cortez and a handful of men.   

Driving back to Washington through Salt Lake City, we walked onto Temple Square.  The Spirit that had testified of Christ engulfed me.  I felt there was something special about that place. We learned about the Book of Mormon and Christ in America.  We learned the Mormons believed Quezocoatl was actually Jesus Christ, who had told the people in the old world "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." John 10:16.  He was talking about people on the American continent, and isles of the sea. The reason Cortez conquered was because they thought he was Quezocoatl who had promised to return one day.  

Back in Bellingham, we attended the LDS Church.  The Spirit was so strong, we felt if we could just sit in the pews and listen to these wonderful people, that would be enough.  We were so impressed with their palpable love, we knew they were different than we were, and better.  It was hard not to put them on a pedestal.  It didn't occur to us that we could become members until the Missionaries taught us about baptism by one holding authority from God to act in His name.  We also learned the Mormons believed marriage was intended for time and all eternity, and that is how we felt.

Now to your question about the Gift of the Holy Ghost:  After baptism, and receiving the Gift if the Holy Ghost,  I have experienced the soul satisfying feeling that this is the Lord's Church.  I have not once in 44 years wondered if God wanted me to worship somewhere else.  That witness has been constant and often drenched with joy and gratitude for this knowledge.

Our children have attended Christmas Mass at the Catholic Church.  They have attended the Pentacostle Church with friends.  They have attended the Lutheran and Presbyterian Churches with grandparents. We have never discouraged them.  They love their friends, as do we.  But the Gift of the Holy Ghost makes it clear the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is God's Church on Earth.  Every visit to other churches strengthens our testimonies of this church.  We appreciate those churches and people.  But they are not the same.  I believe it is the Gift of the Holy Ghost that does this for us.  It gives us this constant, solid feeling to our core that "This is the right place."  This is the place we were searching for.  This is the place God wants us to be.  That's how the Gift of the Holy Ghost is a constant companion in my life.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Meerkat

[hope_for_things]

18 hours ago, pogi said:

Growing up in the Church, it was explained to me that the gift of the Holy Ghost makes the spirit available to us "always" if we are obedient, whereas those who have not received baptism and confirmation can only have the Holy Ghost "occasionally" with them.   The example that was always used is that when the missionaries share their message with investigators they can have the spirit with them in that moment to testify of truth, but other than that, they shouldn't expect much. 

This does not jive with my understanding of the Holy Ghost and His role which is primarily to testify of the Father and the Son, and to sanctify through the baptism of fire.  I interpret that to mean that the Holy Ghost (even for baptized members) is an occasional experience.  The baptism of fire being a special sanctifying experience for those who "receive the Holy Ghost" yet not necessarily received by all baptized members. Are not all other experiences of "the spirit" related to the Light of Christ?  The D&C seems to suggest that the role of the light of Christ is much more expansive than the role of the Holy Ghost in terms of power, knowledge, learning right from wrong, being guided in safety, personal revelation, endowments etc.  Is this not the case?  I ask because this 'doctrine" is still fairly prevalent in our church that we can have the Holy Ghost more often than others.  This is part of the reason that Navidad has a beef with our church.  He seems to think that his experience with the spirit is no less frequent or powerful than ours...and I think he is right.

The question is, where did this idea come from and why is it still taught? The only scriptural source that I could think of is the sacramental prayer, where it says "...that they might always have his spirit to be with them...".  First of all, is this speaking of the Holy Ghost or the light of Christ.  I could make a pretty good argument that it is actually speaking of the light of Christ (which is frequently referred to as "the spirit" or "His spirit" etc.), but I think most think of it as referring to the Holy Ghost.  

What think ye, do we have the Holy Ghost more in our lives than others?  What about the light of Christ?  Aren't those who are not baptized into the covenant experiencing the light of Christ equally, as they seek to do his will and follow their conscience to the best of their ability?  Is it time we stop teaching this folk doctrine which is extremely invalidating of other faith experiences?

My Holy Ghost is better than your Holy Ghost, infinity! 

[pogi]

Thank you all for sharing your perspectives and insights.  It has given me some things to think about.  I don't know that I am satisfied yet in my understanding of the principle of "constant companionship", what that means or what that might look like, or how one can distinguish the influence of the Holy Ghost from the influence of the light of Christ, and the roles of each, because there seems to be some overlay.  I suspect that the Church in the new testament and Book of Mormon did not have the amount of revelation that we have on the light of Christ today, and I suspect that many in the modern church still do not appreciate and conceptualize the role of the light of Christ in member's lives - giving instead most (if not all) credit to the Holy Ghost for spiritual feelings, insights, revelation, inspiration, guidance, etc.   

It seems to me that the popular Mormon understanding and teaching is that the light of Christ is more for those who are not yet baptized, a sort of preliminary, or preparatory guide, or training wheels for bigger and better things.  I don't think members appreciate the role the light of Christ still plays in their lives after baptism.  I think its role is poorly understood and undervalued by most members.  I see the overarching spiritual experiences in my life, as a member, being a consequence of my interaction with the light of Christ, and I see the same light in non-members.  There are a couple of sacred and special experiences in my life that I clearly attribute to the Holy Ghost, experiences that were made available to me through the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

So, when Mormons say that we have the "spirit" more than others.  I really cringe, because Mormons are not automatically endowed with the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost after confirmation.  We are only endowed with access to receive the Holy Ghost in our lives and the sanctification through baptism of fire, and the constant companionship (which I do not yet fully understand), but how many actually "receive" it, beyond receiving the ordinance, I can't say.

I think of the "still small voice" that we attribute to the Holy Ghost in Mormonism, yet as I study from spiritual giants in Buddhism, and I hear them teach of "the still small voice (yes, they use the exact same phrase!)", and I see the light in their countenance and the enduring inner peace and well-being, and charity that they display, and as I hear the wisdom and see the gifts of the spirit that they display, several impressions go through my head.  And as I study the word of Benedictine Monks and listen to their lectures, I think, "these men have the spirit with them, I feel it just like I feel it from Mormons", and by following the principles they teach in contemplative prayer, my personal relationship with my Father has developed into something deeper and greater than I ever found in Mormon teachings of prayer.  If these men were Mormon, most would attribute the Holy Ghost to these men and their words.  I KNOW these men teach truth and light and I feel their "spirit" just like I feel the spirit in Mormons, and when I compare and contrast, I see no difference. I am convinced that the "spirit" that we feel, that most Mormons attribute to the Holy Ghost, is really the light of Christ which is bestowed upon all of God's creations. 

More to say later... 

[Jeanne]

I have often wondered in days before and after mormonism about that still small voice.  If we are to believe that we must have the spirit to hear the HG and his promptings...where then is he when we need him the most?   Is our own intuitive instincts at play when we need answers right away..and yet, I do know a difference in my own quality of listening when I search for an answer with less of plea...than a desire to really know.  Many here may think that perhaps I have lost that spirit in my resignation from the church; but I can tell you because I know that difference that he is there..

This may be for a different thread...but to what extent in our early teachings do we adhere to the very idea of guardian angels...I think that I have may have confused the two sometimes..and yet often I am feeling very much watched over.