Jump to content

The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Wisdom, is a Girl


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...
On 6/10/2022 at 8:46 PM, Pyreaux said:

She is portrayed as a female companion or wife of God, who existed at his side, and even participated in the creation of the world (Prov 3:19; 8:22-34).

Quote

D&C 130:22 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.

If you are saying our Mother in Heaven (the eternal wife of God and Mother of our spirits) is the Holy Ghost, then she (being a resurrected being) must have forfeited or put aside her resurrected body in order to perform the labors of the Holy Ghost. A personage with a body of flesh and bones cannot dwell in us.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

A personage with a body of flesh and bones cannot dwell in us.

That makes sense, at least from where we are now (in the Telestial world), but could there be more to the nature of God and Christ than we currently perceive?

Is the nature of God and Christ compatible with these teachings?: 

"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." John 14:20

"God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." 1 John 4:16

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?  ...for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."  John 17:21

Link to comment

I like looking at Webster’s 1828 dictionary to see possible nuances for words used by Joseph and other early Saints. 
 

For Dwell:

DWELL, verb intransitive  preterit tensedwelled, usually contracted into dwelt. [See Dally.]

1. To abide as a permanent resident, or to inhabit for a time; to live in a place; to have a habitation for some time or permanence.

God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem. Genesis 9:27.

DWELL imports a residence of some continuance. We use abide for the resting of a night or an hour; but we never say, he dwelt in a place a day or a night. dwell may signify a residence for life or for a much shorter period, but not for a day. In scripture, it denotes a residence of seven days during the feast of tabernacles.

Ye shall dwell in booths seven days. Leviticus 23:42.

The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. John 1:38.

2. To be in any state or condition; to continue.

To dwell in doubtful joy.

3. To continue; to be fixed in attention; to hang upon with fondness.

The attentive queen dwelt on his accents.

They stand at a distance, dwelling on his looks and language, fixed in amazement.

4. To continue long; as, to dwell on a subject, in speaking, debate or writing; to dwell on a note in music.

DWELL, as a verb transitive, is not used. We who dwell this wild, in Milton, is not a legitimate phrase.

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Dwell

Link to comment
46 minutes ago, manol said:

That makes sense, at least from where we are now (in the Telestial world), but could there be more to the nature of God and Christ than we currently perceive?

Is the nature of God and Christ compatible with these teachings?: 

"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." John 14:20

"God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." 1 John 4:16

"Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?  ...for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." 1 Corinthians 3:16-17

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."  John 17:21

IMO, to be consistent with D&C 130, the entity that does the in-dwelling is the Holy Ghost. 
 

And there is this…

Quote

I have been unable to locate any extant historical evidence that Joseph Smith ever deviated from teaching the plural and anthropomorphic nature of all three members of the Godhead. Thankfully, before his death, he was able to amplify and clarify his teachings regarding not only the literal embodiment of the Father and the Son, but also the nature and status of the Holy Ghost. Regarding the Holy Ghost, Joseph Smith was reported to have taught that “the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation”29 and that he “is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body. as the Savior did or as god did or the gods before them took bodies.”30

Importantly, the text that emerges from the revisions of Joseph Smith’s recorded statements given at Ramus, Illinois, on April 2, 1843, not only retained his original teaching regarding the embodiment of the Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit31 but accentuated the difference between the Holy Ghost’s body and the bodies of the Father and the Son. In addition, the final portion of the revision, “Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us,” although enigmatic, actually improved upon the Clayton and Richards diary entries in that it brought these teachings into conformity with other scriptural passages from the New Testament and the Book of Mormon that assert the Holy Ghost dwells in us (for example, see 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; and Hel. 4:24).

A proper exegesis of Paul’s teaching that “ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you,” demonstrates how closely this final revision complies with biblical teachings. The Greek word that has been translated as ye in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and 6:19 is ἐστέ (esté), which is plural. As a result, LDS scholars almost universally agree that the word “temple” referred to in these and other New Testament scriptures referred to a body of believers, or church members as a group, not an individual (hence the use of the plural “ye”). 32 Similarly, just as the “ye” evoked by Paul is plural and the word “temple” refers to a body of believers, the word “us” in D&C 130:22 is also plural—suggesting that the Holy Ghost dwells in “us” as a body of believers, not in our individual temples, or bodies. Significantly, this retains Joseph Smith’s original correction to Orson Hyde regarding the embodiment of the three members of the Godhead, which meant not only that “a person cannot have the personage of the [Holy Ghost] in his heart,” but also that “the idea that [the Father and the Son] will dwell in a mans heart is . . . false.”

Although it is not possible to know if this interpretation is what was originally intended by those making the revisions to Joseph Smith’s teachings of April 2, 1843, it does illustrate how these changes helped bring those teachings in line with other scriptures, while still retaining the original intent of the corrections Joseph Smith made to Orson Hyde’s sermon on April 2, 1843. In other words, this exegesis shows that the phrase “Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” rather than referring to the literal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in each individual Saint, which Joseph Smith’s teachings indicate is not possible, actually refers to the fact that the Holy Ghost dwells in “us” as a body of Saints, or in the Church membership as a whole. https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-textual-development-of-dc-13022-and-the-embodiment-of-the-holy-ghost/
 

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

IMO, to be consistent with D&C 130, the entity that does the in-dwelling is the Holy Ghost. 
 

And there is this…

 

I disagree with the author of that paper.  He wrote: "... this exegesis shows that the phrase “Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us” rather than referring to the literal indwelling of the Holy Ghost in each individual Saint, which Joseph Smith’s teachings indicate is not possible, actually refers to the fact that the Holy Ghost dwells in “us” as a body of Saints, or in the Church membership as a whole."

I disagree that the Holy Ghost dwells in "a body of Saints", rather than in individuals.  This based on my experience with said Holy Ghost, such experiences having been personal and individual rather than institutional. 

The way I read verses 22 and 23 of Section 130, it sounds to me like the reception of, and indwelling of, the Holy Ghost is an individual event:

"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." 

Also, the bestowal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost on a person implies that the companionship of the Holy Ghost is an individual event, and not a collective one, just as priesthood authority is something which an individual either has or has not.  Relegating the companionship of the Holy Ghost to a collective event removes individual responsibility for being a clean and receptive temple for the Spirit of God to dwell in (Helaman 4:24).  (And if the Holy Ghost is a collective event, then why not also faith, repentance, and baptism?  Do you see how much that line of thinking waters things down?)

Joseph Smith seemed to emphasize separation rather than oneness when it comes to God and Christ and the Holy Spirit and us.  I can easily see how separation was something which needed emphasizing to get Telestial world people actively engaged in the work of individual progression, but clearly there is an emphasis on oneness in the teachings of Christ.  Let me repeat a couple of scriptures from my previous post, these are the words of Christ so let's not let them get overlooked:

"At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." John 14:20

"That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."  John 17:21

So assuming that Christ is the higher authority on the matter, imo any explanation which does not give full effect to the relevant teachings of Christ is at best incomplete.  Let me try to illustrate, this won't be an exact correspondence:

From Thumb's point of view, Pinky is a separate entity, the two have no apparent connection, and often seem to be opposed to one another.  And Head is a totally different creature, who might as well dwell on another planet.  But there is a higher reality which reveals that Thumb and Pinky are not really separate, and that higher reality is called Hand.  And there is a yet higher reality which unites Thumb, Pinky, and Hand with Head...

In other words I do not think the emphasis on separation put forward by Joseph Smith is painting a complete picture.  It may well be a very USEFUL and EFFECTIVE picture from a motivational standpoint, as evidenced by the disproportionate and impressive amount of industry and effort towards eternal progression found among active Latter-day Saints, but to the extent that it fails to encompass the teachings of Christ on the subject, I think it may be incomplete. 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
1 hour ago, manol said:

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."

But this says the Holy Ghost does not tarry with the man, “tarry” meaning the below.  This could suggest the verse is saying that the Church as a whole has the permanent connection with the Holy Ghost, he is always present in the community, but the Holy Ghost visits individuals, but does not permanently stay with them.  So there is both the community and the individual experience, the difference is the permanence…perhaps implying one must cultivate a proper spiritual attitude in order to keep the Spirit ever present.

However, given other scriptures, I am inclined to your conclusion, though I see it as more shared awareness of each other than actual indwelling…somehow our spirits and minds interact with each other at a level such that we can call ourselves one heart and one mind.

 

Quote

 

TAR'RY, verb intransitive [Latin taurus, a bull.]

1. To stay; to abide; to continue; to lodge.

Tarry all night and wash your feet. Genesis 19:2.

2. To stay behind. Exodus 12:39.

3. To stay in expectation; to wait.

Tarry ye here for us, till we come again to you. Exodus 24:14.

4. To delay; to put off going or coming; to defer.

Come down to me, tarry not. Genesis 45:9.

5. To remain; to stay.

He that telleth lies, shall not tarry in my sight. Psalms 101:7.

TAR'RY, verb transitive To wait for.

I cannot tarry dinner. [Not in use.]

 

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If you are saying our Mother in Heaven (the eternal wife of God and Mother of our spirits) is the Holy Ghost, then she (being a resurrected being) must have forfeited or put aside her resurrected body in order to perform the labors of the Holy Ghost. A personage with a body of flesh and bones cannot dwell in us.

Actually, the wife of God Most High, El Elyon is Asherah Yam, and the Holy Ghost is the spirit daughter, Anath, the wife, or betrothed, of the Lord God, Yhwh, the God of Israel, the pre-incarnate Jesus. Their Temple marriage is depicted in Revelations, the Bride of the Lamb in white. Though, like the Father and Son, the identities of the Mother and Daughter over lap a lot. The word Wisdom and Asherah identify the mother, but its historically extended to  the daughter. She is the female counter part of the two mediators that stands before God the Father. Jesus is on the right and she is one on the left hand. Like the icons on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. A male and female angel standing in an embrace like a man and his wife, while the voice oof God only spoke  from between the two them. 

Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Calm said:

But this says the Holy Ghost does not tarry with the man...

I have always read that verse differently:  "a man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and [it may or may] not tarry with him."  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are reading it as "a man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and [it does] not tarry with him."

I think either reading is arguably valid, from the standpoint of what the wording could imply. 

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

This could suggest the verse is saying that the Church as a whole has the permanent connection with the Holy Ghost, he is always present in the community...

If it works that way, if the Church as a whole is what has the permanent connection with the Holy Spirit, then why not for the early (and subsequent) Christians as well? 

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

... the Holy Ghost visits individuals, but does not permanently stay with them. 

I'm pretty sure the Holy Ghost would have no problem whatsoever "staying" with a welcoming Telestial host who placed no barriers to its presence, but I don't know enough to confidently use the word "permanent" here.

40 minutes ago, Calm said:

one must cultivate a proper spiritual attitude in order to keep the Spirit ever present.

Yes!   Imo "proper spiritual attitude" is a very good description of something that our language doesn't really have the words for.  It's like you deliberately turn on the Light, and you deliberately keep the Light on, which means that you monitor and adjust your attitude to return to the Light whenever you notice you are not in it.  It requires enormous awareness and focused effort at first, but can become your "default" mode... so I THINK it is at least theoretically possible to walk with the Spirit. 

A friend of mine thought so too, and wrote a song about it, link in @rodheadlee's "Music Thread" in Social Hall.

Ime the "proper spiritual attitude" is indistinguishable from love, but not the romantic type.

Edited by manol
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

Actually, the wife of God Most High, El Elyon is Asherah Yam, and the Holy Ghost is the spirit daughter, Anath, the wife, or betrothed, of the Lord God, Yhwh, the God of Israel, the pre-incarnate Jesus. Their Temple marriage is depicted in Revelations, the Bride of the Lamb in white. Though, like the Father and Son, the identities of the Mother and Daughter over lap a lot. The word Wisdom and Asherah identify the mother, but its historically extended to  the daughter. She is the female counter part of the two mediators that stands before God the Father. Jesus is on the right and she is one on the left hand. Like the icons on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. A male and female angel standing in an embrace like a man and his wife, while the voice oof God only spoke  from between the two them. 

I see. 

Link to comment
On 6/10/2022 at 10:46 PM, Pyreaux said:

the Holy Spirit is a girl.

You are correct. 

You've studied it out in your mind

Link to comment
On 6/11/2022 at 3:46 AM, Pyreaux said:

I've been studying this quite a bit. I think the Holy Spirit is a girl. Not only that but the Lord Jesus' sister and wife... and in a few senses, his mother because she was a secondary agent involved in the birth of Jesus. I figured that this is for some reason a controversy because we all call it a "he", like John's gospel in Greek calls it a "he" while the Greek word for "spirit" is neutral. But the Old Testament Hebrew for "Spirit" is consistently a female.

You are confusing grammatical gender with biological gender. 

English used to have grammatical gender, or in other words, English nouns used to have gender. Many other modern languages still have this, as do/did ancient languages, such as Koine (or NT Greek). If you go according to German, the Holy Spirit is male: "der heilige Geist". Also in Spanish French: "el espiritu sankto"; "le Saint-Esprit". The Hebrew for "holy spirit" is רוח הקודש, which is feminine. 

If grammatical gender corresponded to biological gender, in German rocks would be male, cats would be female, and girls would be neuter. Similar situations exist in French, Spanish, Italian, Greek, and Hebrew. 

So just because the grammatical gender of "spirit" is female in one language, does not make the Holy Spirit female.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

You are confusing grammatical gender with biological gender. 

English used to have grammatical gender, or in other words, English nouns used to have gender. Many other modern languages still have this, as do/did ancient languages, such as Koine (or NT Greek). If you go according to German, the Holy Spirit is male: "der heilige Geist". Also in Spanish French: "el espiritu sankto"; "le Saint-Esprit". The Hebrew for "holy spirit" is רוח הקודש, which is feminine. 

If grammatical gender corresponded to biological gender, in German rocks would be male, cats would be female, and girls would be neuter. Similar situations exist in French, Spanish, Italian, Greek, and Hebrew. 

So just because the grammatical gender of "spirit" is female in one language, does not make the Holy Spirit female.

Some good points about Indo-European languages and gender.  Swedish, which I learned on my mission, has similar confused genders.  Does this confusion extend to Semitic languages as well?  I don't know if what is true in German would also be true in Hebrew.

Link to comment

I guess this means Heavenly Father is a boy.

I thought he was at least a grown-up.

Link to comment
On 8/3/2022 at 2:28 PM, Stargazer said:

You are confusing grammatical gender with biological gender. 

English used to have grammatical gender, or in other words, English nouns used to have gender. Many other modern languages still have this, as do/did ancient languages, such as Koine (or NT Greek). If you go according to German, the Holy Spirit is male: "der heilige Geist". Also in Spanish French: "el espiritu sankto"; "le Saint-Esprit". The Hebrew for "holy spirit" is רוח הקודש, which is feminine. 

If grammatical gender corresponded to biological gender, in German rocks would be male, cats would be female, and girls would be neuter. Similar situations exist in French, Spanish, Italian, Greek, and Hebrew. 

So just because the grammatical gender of "spirit" is female in one language, does not make the Holy Spirit female.

 You stopped reading too soon. There is no confusion if the verbs and alternative epithets are all female too, then the narrative considers it female also. Tons of other documents I haven't even mentioned yet.

Link to comment
On 8/1/2022 at 1:34 AM, Pyreaux said:

Actually, the wife of God Most High, El Elyon is Asherah Yam, and the Holy Ghost is the spirit daughter, Anath, the wife, or betrothed, of the Lord God, Yhwh, the God of Israel, the pre-incarnate Jesus. Their Temple marriage is depicted in Revelations, the Bride of the Lamb in white. Though, like the Father and Son, the identities of the Mother and Daughter over lap a lot. The word Wisdom and Asherah identify the mother, but its historically extended to  the daughter. She is the female counter part of the two mediators that stands before God the Father. Jesus is on the right and she is one on the left hand. Like the icons on the mercy seat of the ark of the covenant. A male and female angel standing in an embrace like a man and his wife, while the voice oof God only spoke  from between the two them. 

Any post about God that actually starts with "Actually" ought to simply skipped.

Don't bother to read 'em.

It is an absolute unchangeable law of the universe that's it's wrong.

 

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

 You stopped reading too soon. There is no confusion if the verbs and alternative epithets are all female too, then the narrative considers it female also. Tons of other documents I haven't even mentioned yet.

Grammatically, verbs and alternative epithets would match the gender of the word, too. For example, in Spanish, a verb can be take a masculine or feminine ending depending upon who is the one taking action. For example, it is customary for a person upon being introduced to another person, to indicate "delight" at the introduction. A man says "encantado." A woman says "encantada". The delight has no gender, despite the gender of the speaker. In German a male cat is most frequently referred to as "die Katze", which is female. Unless the speaker wants to make a specific case that the cat in question is a tomcat, in which case the word is "der Kater", and female pronouns and adjectival endings are also employed because they agree in gender. For example, this perfectly grammatical German description about my cat: "Siest Du die graue Katze? Sie heißt 'Klaus'. Sie ist männlich. Sie gehört mir." = "Do you see the gray cat? Her name is 'Klaus'. She is male. She belongs to me."  All the while talking about a tomcat. You could do the opposite with a horse, since the base word for horse ("Pferd") is male. "Main Pferd ist schwanger. Er ist beim Tierartz." = "My horse is pregnant. He is at the veterinarians." 

Wisdom is also considered female because of the grammatical gender of the Greek word for wisdom, sophia, which is likewise female in Greek. Will one argue that wisdom is a woman? 

You're quite entitled to your feelings and opinions on this, of course, but there are plenty of narratives and documents that are very explicit that God has no body and is only a spirit, and not only that, but is an indescribable triune being, without body, parts, or passions. Of course this is incorrect, and a remnant of Greek philosophy injected into theology ("the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture"), but plenty of people will argue it. Until you come up with an authoritative doctrinal statement from the scriptures that the Holy Spirit is a female being, asserting this as a fact based on an incidental feature of linguistics is a speculation. 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Any post about God that actually starts with "Actually" ought to simply skipped.

Don't bother to read 'em.

It is an absolute unchangeable law of the universe that's it's wrong.

 

Actually God doesn’t exist.

Checkmate! Atheism defeated.

Link to comment
On 8/6/2022 at 5:36 PM, The Nehor said:

Actually God doesn’t exist.

Checkmate! Atheism defeated.

Actually, actually,  science cannot rule out the existence of God. 

 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...