Teachings of Joseph Smith on the Gift of the Holy Ghost and Gifts of the Spirit

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Missionaries always speak English.

That's not really accurate.  I had several mission companions who couldn't speak English on my mission in the Philippines.  We communicated only in Tagalog. 

4 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Yes it should. This church have started in AMERICA. US. And maybe you didn't know that yet but in AMERICA they speak English. 

Are you suggesting that people should be required to pass an English test before they are baptized?  I don't understand what you mean when you say English should be "required".  Required for who and by who?  It doesn't matter where the religion originated, it is not limited to that location.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

They aren't false Grug. That you don't see it that way is largely irrelevant.

Ok. Let's start here:

I won't disagree with you on the fact that there are a lot of non-believers on this board. But, for active Mormons, most of those on this board are in fact reasonably typical. This is similar to the claims of a dichotomy between so-called internet Mormons and chapel Mormons (you don't hear it so much anymore) but this is because that distinction has been shrinking.

It may have something to do with where you live. I don't know. You haven't provided any personal information about yourself. But, my experience (for whatever personal anecdotal experience is worth) is very different from yours. This is often more relevant than people think because the vast majority of members of the Church are converts. And they certainly don't share the same perspective as someone raised in an ultra-conservative multi-generational Mormon context. I suppose that you might have been suggesting that most members hold a position different from your own - but I really didn't get that vibe from your comments.

Mormonism is a religion of ongoing revelation. Joseph Smith is only relevant when there hasn't been clarification or changes or corrections made to what he taught. This is part of the reason for the label of fundamentalism. But, my use of that label isn't meant in the sense of Mormon Fundamentalism (as a specific set of religious beliefs). I meant the term more generically. That is:

Do I really need to point out the way that you tend to use what you believe are 'strict literal interpretations' of scriptures and ideologies? You certainly have a tendency to try to label those views you favor as orthodox and those you don't as mere opinion. So I think that the label applies here. More in just a moment.

How about this one:

This was referring to Joseph Smith. It was, I think, an important question. In part it was important because you seem to be giving anything said by Joseph Smith a weight which it shouldn't have (merely by its connection to Joseph Smith).

At the same time, every time a more recent prophet provided new revelation, it is given precedence in the LDS Church. This ties back to the idea of fundamentalism. If you have to go strictly to Joseph Smith instead of the current teachings, you are engaging in this fundamentalist mind-set. A discussion on Adam-God, for example, should start with Spencer W. Kimball (or more recent pronouncements on the topic like those from McConkie), rather than with Joseph Smith (or Brigham Young). But in any case, the question is of interest because it asks you were you draw the line in terms of understanding the doctrinal value of Joseph Smith's statements. Is everything in the TPJS supposed to be considered authoritative? Can something be authoritative and doctrinal and then stop being authoritative and doctrinal when we have new light and knowledge? You seem to be really cagey about placing any limits that would favor recent prophetic statements over past ones.

  

There are also a couple of times you have something to this effect back in a now close thread on historical hate speech by historical LDS leaders. It really has nothing to do with whether you keep your views. I don't think anyone here cares about that. Perhaps I am misreading you, but the issue is that you are asserting that your views are the "traditional LDS views" - and this statement isn't really accurate either. This is part of your suggestion that your views are more mainstream than they are. The correct way to describe much of your 'conservative' views are that they are historical views, not traditional. We all know that historically there have been lots of perspectives that are not embraced today and that are not appropriate today. That's what you get pushback on. That and the suggestion that you (and many of the LDS members that you speak to in private conversation) all believe these historical views.

I'm not that interested in citing anything. What I will say is this - you have repeatedly, in the history that I took the time to look up, made the claim that everyone is misunderstanding you. That aren't saying at all what people are reading into your comments. And, of course, things like: "I get that my views "sound like" misogyny to you and others here who are biased and prejudiced against men who hold less progressive and more traditional views..." This is disdain. It isn't everyone else, it's you.

Really? You live in a bubble. If I come across as disdainful and snarky, it's because I intend it to be that way. And, while I think that most people would agree with me on my perceptions of you and what you are doing, it seems obvious from your history here that you will not recognize any of my points as having any validity. You will simply dismiss me as an irrelevant progressive who doesn't understand or accept the traditional Mormon faith.

If you are representative of that 'traditional Mormon faith,' I can live with that.

What is interesting though is his choice of image and avatar/moniker seems to suggest he WANTS to portray that image;  perhaps "he doth protest too much" 

🤔

 

Edited March 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I know about interviews too; they are just as scary for the person conducting them ! 

 

One priest shared with me that one (of many) reasons he preferred confessionals to the more recent face-to-face confession setup, is because hearing confessions can be awkward and "scary" and it was easier for everyone all around if there was a confessional screen. Of course if it was someone active in the parish he would know who they were because of their voice, but it still helped. After one confession with him, he asked me if we were still on for lunch the next day, ha.

[Dario_M]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

. 

Are you suggesting that people should be required to pass an English test before they are baptized?

 

I didn't say that. Do you not wanna put words in my mouth please? 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

  I don't understand what you mean when you say English should be "required". 

Yeah just a little yeah. But nowhere did i use the word required. 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Required for who and by who? 

 

For me. Because i'm in Portugal now and my Portugues isn't that great either. But Portugues is not a world language and further it is also a dang difficult language to learn. There are a lot of members in my ward who don't speak Portugues, les then me and they would be lost if nobody would speak English with them. So i'm not the only one with this problem (not the missionaries though they speak perfectly Portugues. I'm really impressed). Big upvote for the missionaries in my ward. ⬆️ They are doing a good job.

I have a question btw. Do you have the ability to feel some emphatie? 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It doesn't matter where the religion originated, it is not limited to that location.

What is your point now?? 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Dario_M

[mfbukowski]

40 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Missionaries always speak English. Most of them are from US. Plus they also speak the language of the country where they are going to with their mission. You know this perfectly well. 

Yes it should. This church have started in AMERICA. US. And maybe you didn't know that yet but in AMERICA they speak English. 

Apart from this church being an English church is it also just so that English is a WORLD LANGUAGE so actually should everyone speak at least a little English. Anno 2023 one should think everyone would be able (or willing) to speak a little English. Unfortunatly time have stand still in all those years it seems like. 

 

The interview whas scary for me as well. But i whas lucky the guy whas extremaly nice and understanding. And spoke perfectly English because he whas from the US. That in combination with my charmes and a little of my lies. And i whas in. From that moment my latter day saint adventure whas really getting started. Few days later i got baptized.🥳

And i don't care what you think about that either. 

I think it's great, that you got baptized and agree that you must absolutely follow your heart, wherever that leads.  

Edited March 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Dario_M]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I think it's great, and agree that you must absolutely follow your heart, wherever that leads.  

It will lead me to the LDS church for now. 

Shall we go ontopic again? Where is @Grug the Neanderthal ??

Edited March 3, 2023 by Dario_M

[mfbukowski]

41 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

One priest shared with me that one (of many) reasons he preferred confessionals to the more recent face-to-face confession setup, is because hearing confessions can be awkward and "scary" and it was easier for everyone all around if there was a confessional screen. Of course if it was someone active in the parish he would know who they were because of their voice, but it still helped. After one confession with him, he asked me if we were still on for lunch the next day, ha.

Yep! Getting into the nitty gritty face to face is something else.

Now THERE are some English idioms!

Edited March 3, 2023 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I have a question btw. Do you have the ability to feel some emphatie? 

I can and do feel empathy for your situation, but that doesn't mean that I agree, or maybe don't fully understand exactly what it is you are suggesting should be required.  It sounds like you are suggesting that English should be required to be spoken in wards where English is not the native language.  If that is what you are saying, then I strongly disagree.  Why require everyone else (literally millions of non-English speaking members across the globe) to learn English when it just takes one of you to learn the language of the country you live in?  Missionaries typically become fairly fluent in just 1 year.  It will take some effort but it will come much easier for you to learn Portuguese than  it would be for everyone else to learn English.   Please don't take offense.  I don't mean any.  But I think it would be terribly sad if English was required to be spoken in every ward across the globe.   We want to embrace more diversity and cultural difference and not homogenize everything. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by pogi

[Dario_M]

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

I can and do feel empathy for your situation, but that doesn't mean that I agree, or maybe don't fully understand exactly what it is you are suggesting should be required.  It sounds like you are suggesting that English should be required to be spoken in wards where English is not the native language.  If that is what you are saying, then I strongly disagree.  Why require everyone else (literally millions of non-English speaking members across the globe) to learn English when it just takes one of you to learn the language of the country you live in?  Missionaries typically become fairly fluent in just 1 year.  It will take some effort but it will come much easier for you to learn Portuguese than  it would be for everyone else to learn English.   Please don't take offense.  I don't mean any.  But I think it would be terribly sad if English was required to be spoken in every ward across the globe.   We want to embrace more diversity and cultural difference and not homogenize everything. 

I didn't even used the word "required" I said that it would be nice if all the bishops at least would be able to speak a little English. In the first place i wasn't even talking about all the church members as well.

But if somebody has an important roll in the church it would be nice if that person would be able to speak a little English. That's all.  

 

Okay and can we go ontopic please. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by Dario_M

[pogi]

Quote

I didn't even used the word "required"

Here is the interaction, just so you know why I was confused:

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We are a global church, English is not required, nor should it be.

After mfbukowski said that it shouldn't be "required", you replied

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Yes it should.

That is where the confusion started for me, and that is why I was using the word "required". 

11 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

I didn't even used the word "required" I said that it would be nice if all the bishops at least would be able to speak a little English. In the first place i wasn't even talking about all the church members as well.

But if somebody has an important roll in the church it would be nice if that person would be able to speak a little English. That's all.  

Okay and can we go ontopic please. 

Thanks for clarifying - that makes more sense.  I agree it would be nice.

Back to topic now. 

[Navidad]

9 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

My experience is that in a place like this, you generally get back what you dish out.

I think you are spot on with this. I had to learn this the hard way.

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

People are free to disagree, but I'm just going off of what Joseph Smith said. And I believe that what Joseph Smith said is logical, rational, and consistent with the scriptures.

Since you didn't ask me not to give you any more counsel. I would offer the following. Today read I Cor. 3: 21 and memorize it. Then think about it whenever you post. Thanks for receiving this.

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Since you didn't ask me not to give you any more counsel. I would offer the following. Today read I Cor. 3: 21 and memorize it. Then think about it whenever you post. Thanks for receiving this.

But yet this is NOT counseling of course

 

[Navidad]

7 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

a lot of non-believers

Hi, would you mind if I ask you to provide some clarification or context on who is a "non-believer" on this board? Not by name of course. That seems like an overly broad term when you are usually very precise and specific in your language. That is one of the things I enjoy about your posts. Thanks so much.

[blackstrap]

2 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Because i'm in Portugal now

Small world. A grandchild is currently serving in Portugal.

[blackstrap]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

who is a "non-believer" on this board

Most of us here are non-believers ... in Islam. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi, would you mind if I ask you to provide some clarification or context on who is a "non-believer" on this board? Not by name of course.

"Identifying" without naming becomes difficult in this context.

But I know that bald guy hiding behind that old computer is one of them 😡

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I'm not aware of any instance where Joseph Smith said this. And I'm not claiming this either. I have repeatedly said that I believe that individuals can obviously have these things to varying degrees without first being baptized and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. But there must be something that is obtained when one receives the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands that one cannot receive in any other way. Otherwise this would not be necessary and there would have been no need for God to send angels to restore this authority to earth. There must also be some signs that distinguish the true and living church of God from those that aren't, and prophets and apostles have consistently taught that the gifts of the Spirit is one of these signs. 

As far as I can tell, no one is arguing that nothing is obtained when one receives the gift of the Holy Ghost that can't be received another way.  Like I said previously, the pushback you are getting comes from your many posts implying that only members have access to the gifts of the spirit or can experience the Holy Ghost.  It's not the doctrine of the gift of the Holy Ghost that some posters are disagreeing with you about.  It's the umbrella that you appear to be putting over that doctrine.  

Quote

I would really like you to answer the question about what the purpose of the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands is if the Gift of the Holy Ghost, with all of it's blessings, can be obtained without this ordinance. Or alternatively please explain what it is that you believe is given when one receives the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands that can be received in no other way.

Again, no one is arguing that there are some blessings of the Holy Ghost that can only be received in this way.   People are disagreeing with your pronouncement of what those blessings are.  You seem to include pretty much everything that requires the Spirit.  Other posters (myself included) don't believe that that is the case.

Quote

Maybe. Or it's a translation error and the gentiles were simply full of the Holy Ghost at the time of their conversion, which was a sign to the Jews that they were truly converted and ready for baptism, and then they received the actual gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. Had they not been baptized and had hands laid on them, then they Holy Ghost, which had come upon them and convinced them of the truth, would have left them. 

Maybe.  I'm fine if that's the case.  My only point in bringing up Acts was in how it compared to your claims that JS believed that such wasn't possible.  I was pointing out that we had a scriptural record that disagreed.

Quote

With all due respect, there's a big difference between JFS stating his opinion that mankind would never reach the moon and then admitting his error and Joseph Smith the rational teachings of Joseph Smith on the gift of the Holy Ghost and the gifts of the Spirit. 

What is the difference?  JFS didn't believe he was stating his opinion.  He believed he was stating fact based on our doctrine.  What precludes JS from doing something similar, but without ever realizing his error?

[Navidad]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But yet this is NOT counseling of course

 

Au Contraire - It is the best counseling I can offer! Anytime we get obsessed with a human leader we are bound to be disappointed. That is my experience and you have said a dozen times on the forum that experience is what counts! Au Contraire! 🙃

[Grug the Neanderthal]

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

11 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, it definitely is. Every single one of your charges against me is false. 

They aren't false Grug. That you don't see it that way is largely irrelevant.

Nope. Every single charge is false. 

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

11 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

1) CFR where I have asserted that my "fundamentalist" views are mainstream within the LDS Church. 

Ok. Let's start here:

On 3/1/2023 at 11:50 AM, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Just stating my observations. The kinds of beliefs that are frequently expressed on this board are not representative of the typical beliefs I hear expressed by most active members of the church, even in private conversations. 

In no way does this statement of mine show that I am asserting that my "fundamentalist" views are mainstream within the church. There are many beliefs expressed frequently on this forum that are not typically expressed by most mainstream members. Stating this is not an assertion that my "fundamentalist" beliefs are mainstream in the church. This quote is taken out of context anyway and wasn't even about my beliefs. 

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

11 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

3) CFR that I don't reply to nearly every question or comment directed at me and refuse to engage in discussion. 

How about this one:

On 3/1/2023 at 7:37 PM, MiserereNobis said:

What statements of his are given as his personal opinion?

This was referring to Joseph Smith. It was, I think, an important question. In part it was important because you seem to be giving anything said by Joseph Smith a weight which it shouldn't have (merely by its connection to Joseph Smith).

So stating that I didn't have an answer off the top of my head and inviting him to produce a statement by Joseph Smith that he believed was only his opinion so we could discuss it, is supposed to show that I'm frequently refusing to engage in discussion? You're kidding, right?

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think it's just a certain set of more progressive LDS or non-LDS individuals on this board who don't like my more traditional LDS views who give me push back and then get upset when remain firm in my views.

In no way does this statement show that I used the term progressive in derogatory way. 

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I'm not that interested in citing anything.

Of course not, because there's nothing to cite. It's a total false accusation. 

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

"I get that my views "sound like" misogyny to you and others here who are biased and prejudiced against men who hold less progressive and more traditional views..."

And what was this comment in response to? I was responding to the disdain, derision, and false accusations of others who lashed out at me without any provocation on my part. 

10 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You live in a bubble

Actually, I think you live in a bubble, if you believe that any of the false accusations you've made against me are true, let alone that any "evidence" you've supposedly provided here supports those false accusations. 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Benjamin McGuire]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi, would you mind if I ask you to provide some clarification or context on who is a "non-believer" on this board?

In the context of these comments, I mean those that aren't active believing Mormons.

To provide a little context, within the Mormon community (and that umbrella includes some of its critics) there is often an attempt to identify believers by a belief set and label them as way of making them other. So here we have 'progressive Mormons', who might also be called (in other contexts) 'internet Mormons' or 'cafeteria Mormons'. You can google these terms to see what I am referring to. There are also 'chapel Mormons' (a term used sometimes to refer to the 'in the pews' Mormons, so to speak - but this term is almost never used in a benign way). These kinds of labels are divisive. The label of fundamentalist that I use may also fit this category (and so I may be guilty of this to some extent in my comments above) - but, that term is also used in a broader sense (as I indicated) and in a very narrow sense (to describe Mormon splinter groups - especially those that engage in the ongoing practice of polygamy). I was not intending my comments to be understood in this last definition in any way - which is why I referenced the external definition.

One of the problems that the Mormon community faces is that we have a group that is part of a well-defined Mormon cultural group and we have a group that isn't. Mormons that are part of that cultural experience are those who were raised in the Mormon Church, who grew up in communities that were primarily Mormon (or who had a large enough Mormon presence so that they were not particularly different). They face an entirely different experience within Mormonism than those members who live in what we sometimes label as the mission field. My parents were converts. I grew up in northern Michigan. We had that wonderful part of our local history dealing with (King) James Strang and Beaver Island. And there were very few cultural Mormons in my experience. When individuals join the Mormon Church, they bring with them a lot of beliefs that they held prior to becoming Mormons - and it (naturally) flavors their beliefs and their way of thinking about God and religion. They have no experience with this concept of 'traditional Mormonism' which means that it isn't really 'traditional Mormonism' at all, but rather a historical Mormonism (and perhaps cultural - but only in a sort of Utah-centric view). Grug posts a lot of things that aren't taught in the LDS Church - and certainly aren't discussed by the members of the Mormon Church (and in particular by the convert members of the Mormon Church). I am contesting his view that his ideas are representative and that the community of believing LDS members on-line is all that different from the community of LDS members you find in the pews in Church on Sunday. This may have been more true a few decades ago (I have been participating in on-line forums about Mormonism off and on for more than thirty years now) - but it really isn't the case any more in my experience. Mormons are a very diverse group. Perhaps the difference (and one you might recognize in your own experience) is that those who participate in forums like these regularly often become more comfortable with articulating their various points of views than those who share their beliefs and questions primarily in church on Sunday. And certainly, the sense of anonymity tends to help bring out the worst in people (one of the reasons why I began using my own name in these forums a long time ago - to provide myself with a degree of accountability for my remarks).

[Benjamin McGuire]

19 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Nope. Every single charge is false. 

Like I said, a bubble.

20 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

This quote is taken out of context anyway and wasn't even about my beliefs. 

So I will ask you the question then and you can clear it up. Do you believe that your views are mainstream within the LDS Church?

21 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

In no way does this statement show that I used the term progressive in derogatory way. 

So again, I'll ask you to clarify. What exactly do you mean when you call Mormons progressive?

Easy questions to answer, right?

And finally, one more. Do you agree that Mormon's teach that the most important revelation that the Church receives is the revelation of today, and that doctrinal statements clarifications issued by recent prophets supersede the statements made by past leaders and prophets?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

7 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

So I will ask you the question then and you can clear it up. Do you believe that your views are mainstream within the LDS Church?

Most yes, some no. I believe that my views are better aligned with past mainstream views than present ones. 

7 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

What exactly do you mean when you call Mormons progressive?

I mean that they view things in a less traditional or orthodox way, particularly what was taught and accepted throughout the majority of church history, or even a couple of decades ago. 

7 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Do you agree that Mormon's teach that the most important revelation that the Church receives is the revelation of today, and that doctrinal statements clarifications issued by recent prophets supersede the statements made by past leaders and prophets?

Yes, I agree that this is what the church teaches. 

Edited March 4, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Benjamin McGuire]

5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Most yes, some no. I believe that my views are better aligned with past mainstream views than present ones. 

So I was not wrong. I am simply contesting this perspective. I don't believe that your views are representative of mainstream LDS membership.

6 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I mean that they view things in a less traditional or orthodox way, particularly what was taught and accepted throughout the majority of church history, or even a couple of decades ago. 

And this isn't what progressive means. So perhaps you will excuse us for understanding what you are saying differently than you intended it.

Here is the problem with what you write. Mormonism has always had its strongly progressive (your definition) elements. When Mormonism came into existence, it was progressive. But the crowning part of Mormonism that maintains its progressive nature is its acceptance of continuing revelation. In other words, the past is not more orthodox than the present. This belief that the past is more orthodox than the present constitutes the central defining aspect of what is labeled Mormon fundamentalism (although it is an aspect of most religious fundamentalisms). Just as importantly (as I just noted to Navidad), as a church consisting mostly of converts, most Mormons have never had significant exposure to "what was taught and accepted throughout the majority of church history". And this is a good thing in my opinion. It was good that we abandoned polygamy. It was good that we decided to give the blacks the priesthood. It is good that our narratives on gender are moving in the right direction. But the fact that they have changed also means that I am willing to put more stock in my personal experience that your beliefs are not representative of the majority of members of the LDS Church than I am in your claims that they are.

6 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Yes, I agree that this is what the church teaches. 

And do you believe that this is true? Your answer seems to be dancing around the question.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

 

25 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Most yes, some no. I believe that my views are better aligned with past mainstream views than present ones. 

So I was not wrong. I

 

No, you were totally wrong.

3 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

26 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I mean that they view things in a less traditional or orthodox way, particularly what was taught and accepted throughout the majority of church history, or even a couple of decades ago. 

And this isn't what progressive means.

I disagree. I believe that the term progressive can be appropriately used in this context.

And considering the disdain and derision with which my expression of conservative views were met with by a group of individuals on this board, I believe that referring to them as progressive is appropriate. That’s not derogatory, it’s just identifying perspectives and biases. 

14 minutes ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

And do you believe that this is true?

No, not really.