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

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Are you saying that outside of the LDS church there are no gifts of the spirit? So there were no gifts of the spirit from the time of the great apostasy until Joseph Smith?

Yes.

8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

How do you explain all the spiritual experiences that have occurred outside of the LDS church?

There’s a difference between people having a spiritual experience or feeling the influence of the Holy Ghost and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost with the accompanying gifts of the Spirit.

What is this difference?

I'm guessing you'll say that the influence is temporary and the gift is permanent. But how does that work out in daily life? Do LDS people live their lives with something that non-LDS Christians don't have? Can you give me specific details and examples of this, with comparisons?

I guess I'm not sure how one person can say they have the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost while another person, equally or more devout, does not, since the former does not know and literally cannot know the experiences of the latter.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Does an editorial by Joseph Smith in a newspaper constitute an official doctrine?

Yes, I believe it does. 

What words of Joseph Smith are not official doctrine?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don’t think we can dismiss it as an obvious error though just because it doesn’t match with some thing that Joseph Smith said that he never claimed were doctrinal.

These quotes appear to be him reasoning out ideas based on his understanding of the gospel as he had been taught it up to that point.  

I think we can say that the general rule is that baptism is required, but this moment in Acts seems to be an exception to that rule.  

I disagree. I think we can safely conclude that this is an error. What Joseph taught is definitely doctrinal. He taught this same idea multiple times, and with this singular exception, what he taught is completely consistent with the scriptures. 

What would even be the point to having baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and the restoration of the authority to perform these ordinances, if these things aren’t actually necessary to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

9 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What words of Joseph Smith are not official doctrine?

Statements of his that are clearly given as his personal opinion only or have nothing to do with doctrine or expounding on the will of God or what the scriptures mean.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What is this difference?

I’ll answer your question with a question of my own. 

What would be the purpose of God restoring his authority to perform the ordinances of baptism, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. via angels from heaven, if these things weren’t actually necessary and/or were already available in various Christian sects throughout the world?

Edited March 2, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[MiserereNobis]

38 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Statements of his that are clearly given as his personal opinion only or have nothing to do with doctrine or expounding on the will of God or what the scriptures mean.

What statements of his are given as his personal opinion?

[InCognitus]

52 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree that this is what he was saying. He said "We believe that the Holy Ghost is imparted by the laying on of hands of those in authority, and that the gift of tongues, and also the gift of prophecy are gifts of the Spirit, and are obtained through that medium," which I believe clearly shows that he believed that this was the only way these gifts are received. 

For those particular gifts, perhaps (although the spirit of prophecy can be had without it being "the gift of prophecy", for "the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy", Revelation 19:10).  But there are many more gifts of the Spirit, some of which (like revelation and visions) can be obtained without receiving the "Gift" of the Holy Ghost.  My point is that he's NOT making a blanket statement about all the gifts of the Spirit, which is what it sounded like you were saying in the OP, where you said:

"...it is clear that Joseph Smith believed that the only way to receive the Gifts of the Spirit is by being first baptized and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those who have the proper authority from God to perform these ordinances. Which would mean that he believed that no individuals, other than members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day-Saints, are in possession of the gifts of the Spirit."   

Since Joseph included revelation and visions on his list of gifts of the Spirit, it's obvious that he did not mean it as a blanket statement about all the gifts, as you imply above.

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don't believe that revelations, visions, and other manifestations of the Holy Ghost always constitute being gifts of the Spirit. Rather I believe that when these things occur prior to receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, they are designed to help people see the truth so that if the press forward in faith they will receive the opportunity to be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one who has the proper authority from God (the Melchizedek Priesthood).

That was the point that others have made in this thread as well.

Faith is also listed as one of the gifts of the Spirit in scripture (1 Cor 12:9), so that would also be another one of the gifts that doesn't require the Gift of the Holy Ghost (or nobody could possibly follow the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel).  I think faith is another one of those examples of a manifestation of the Holy Ghost that may not be the same as a gift of the Spirit.  The same with the spirit of prophecy, as I mentioned above.  There may be others.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

17 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

What statements of his are given as his personal opinion?

Can’t think of any off the top of my head. But feel free to look into this and let me know what you find. 

[MiserereNobis]

33 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I’ll answer your question with a question of my own. 

What would be the purpose of God restoring his authority to perform the ordinances of baptism, the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. via angels from heaven, if these things weren’t actually necessary and/or were already available in various Christian sects throughout the world?

Well, that's kinda strange, asking a non-LDS about the purpose of the restoration. As an example, I could ask you why the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to three children in a grotto in Fatima. Weird question, eh? Both of these questions assume something that the other person doesn't believe, which generally means the question is rhetorical and not sincere.

But hey, I'll answer. Maybe God thought it was a good idea to help people who didn't believe in Christ so that they would believe in Christ (I was not a Christian before I became Catholic)? Maybe He thought that showing people that scientific materialism was flawed would help lead them to truth (cue @mfbukowski, @pogi, and mine and others' experience of mysticism)? Maybe He thought that sending an angel to a non-LDS would actually improve their life and help them teach other people that there is a God and that through Christ there is salvation?

It seems to me that the impetus is on you, not me, to explain how many people, how so very many people, have had experiences of God and the Holy Spirit despite not being LDS.

 

 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

5 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

That was the point that others have made in this thread as well.

No, I don’t think anyone else made this point on this thread but me. Others were claiming that the gifts of the Spirit and even the Gift of the Holy Ghost can be obtained without first being baptized and receive the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. 

7 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

Since Joseph included revelation and visions on his list of gifts of the Spirit, it's obvious that he did not mean it as a blanket statement about all the gifts, as you imply above.

I disagree. I believe that Joseph Smith would not have considered revelations and visions received by those who have not received the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands to be the gifts of the Spirit given to members of the body of Christ mentioned in the scriptures. 

10 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I think faith is another one of those examples of a manifestation of the Holy Ghost that may not be the same as a gift of the Spirit. 

Agreed. Exceedingly great faith is definitely one of the gifts of the Spirit mentioned in the scriptures, but I think it’s obvious that faith is not exclusively a gift of the spirit. 

[MiserereNobis]

10 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Can’t think of any off the top of my head. But feel free to look into this and let me know what you find. 

You are asking a Catholic to tell you what statements of Joseph Smith are not LDS doctrine?

[Grug the Neanderthal]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, that's kinda strange, asking a non-LDS about the purpose of the restoration. As an example, I could ask you why the Blessed Virgin Mary appeared to three children in a grotto in Fatima. Weird question, eh? Both of these questions assume something that the other person doesn't believe, which generally means the question is rhetorical and not sincere.

But hey, I'll answer. Maybe God thought it was a good idea to help people who didn't believe in Christ so that they would believe in Christ (I was not a Christian before I became Catholic)? Maybe He thought that showing people that scientific materialism was flawed would help lead them to truth (cue @mfbukowski, @pogi, and mine and others' experience of mysticism)? Maybe He thought that sending an angel to a non-LDS would actually improve their life and help them teach other people that there is a God and that through Christ there is salvation?

It seems to me that the impetus is on you, not me, to explain how many people, how so very many people, have had experiences of God and the Holy Spirit despite not being LDS.

 

 

I have no intention of attempting to convince you that the teachings of Joseph Smith on the subject are correct. That would be a fool’s errand. 

The point is that according to the teachings of Joseph Smith and the church today, the ordinances of baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost are necessary. And the authority to perform these ordinances is only found within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No other church or group on earth has this authority.

Furthermore, something real and tangible is received when one receives the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one who has the proper authority from God, which cannot be obtained in any other way. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Grug the Neanderthal]

49 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You are asking a Catholic to tell you what statements of Joseph Smith are not LDS doctrine?

No, you asked me to provide specific statements of Joseph Smith which were only his opinion. I’m declining this request and inviting you to do your own research and to share your findings here if you would like to discuss them. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree. I think we can safely conclude that this is an error. What Joseph taught is definitely doctrinal. He taught this same idea multiple times, and with this singular exception, what he taught is completely consistent with the scriptures. 

Not everything that a prophet teaches is doctrine though.  

Remember when President Joseph Fielding Smith taught that man would never reach the moon?

"We will never get a man into space. This earth is man's sphere and it was never intended that he should get away from it. The moon is a superior planet to the earth and it was never intended that man should go there. You can write it down in your books that this will never happen."

Prophets are like the rest of us, unless God reveals doctrine to them meant for the world.  They use their reason and interpretations of doctrine to develop their own beliefs just like all of us do.  I think that often their interpretations are correct, but not every belief that a prophet holds--or even teaches over the pulpit--is doctrinal.

Quote

What would even be the point to having baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and the restoration of the authority to perform these ordinances, if these things aren’t actually necessary to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

It depends on "what things" you are talking about.  There is a HUGE point to not tying gifts of the spirit to the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  

But remember, exceptions exist for other ordinances, so why not an exception with receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost?  JS baptized Oliver Cowdery before he was even baptized himself.  That is not how we teach baptism works--our doctrine is that you can't baptize someone if you yourself are unbaptized--but the exception existed despite our doctrine.

[InCognitus]

54 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

No, I don’t think anyone else made this point on this thread but me. Others were claiming that the gifts of the Spirit and even the Gift of the Holy Ghost can be obtained without first being baptized and receive the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. 

The comment I was responding to was this one:

3 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I don't believe that revelations, visions, and other manifestations of the Holy Ghost always constitute being gifts of the Spirit. Rather I believe that when these things occur prior to receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, they are designed to help people see the truth so that if the press forward in faith they will receive the opportunity to be baptized and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by one who has the proper authority from God (the Melchizedek Priesthood).

mfbukowski made this very point about Moroni 10:4 toward the beginning of the thread:

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Moroni 10:4 indicates that one MUST be able to verify, by the spirit, that the "church is true" BY MEANS OF THE SPIRIT before one even commits to baptism.

Moroni 10:4 indicates that the Holy Ghost will "manifest" the truth to an individual.  That's revelation by the Spirit and it designed to help people see the truth so they make choices about baptism.

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

I disagree. I believe that Joseph Smith would not have considered revelations and visions received by those who have not received the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands to be the gifts of the Spirit given to members of the body of Christ mentioned in the scriptures. 

The point was that there are things that are listed among the gifts of the Spirit that can be had prior to receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, revelation, faith, visions, and to some extent prophecy, are in that list.

[Grug the Neanderthal]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It depends on "what things" you are talking about

I’m talking about baptism by immersion and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost by proper priesthood authority as restored to earth from the heavens by angels to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. 
 

What is the point of all this if it isn’t actually necessary?
 

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is a HUGE point to not tying gifts of the spirit to the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  

And yet this is the very thing Joseph Smith taught and is also contained in our modern Gospel Principles manual and I’m sure on many other occasions and church publications. 

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

JS baptized Oliver Cowdery before he was even baptized himself.  That is not how we teach baptism works--our doctrine is that you can't baptize someone if you yourself are unbaptized--but the exception existed despite our doctrine.

There’s a big difference in an exception to bring about a restoration after an apostasy, which is doctrinal (see Alma baptizing in the waters of Mormon for example), and what you are suggesting, which is that people can receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost without baptism and the laying on of hands while the authority to perform these ordinances is available. 

It doesn’t make sense (to me anyway) that these gentiles in Acts 10 would have legitimately received the gift of the Holy Ghost at the time of their conversion prior to baptism and the laying on of hands, while everyone else merely received a witness of the Holy Ghost at the time of their conversion and then received the Gift of the Holy Ghost following baptism and the laying on of hands. The Lord’s house is house of order not confusion. As Joseph Smith stated, we believe in the Gift of the Holy Ghost rationally. 

[Grug the Neanderthal]

27 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

The point was that there are things that are listed among the gifts of the Spirit that can be had prior to receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost, revelation, faith, visions, and to some extent prophecy, are in that list.

Sure, but I don’t believe that they are considered to be gifts of the Spirit in these cases. For example, a very wicked and unbelieving man can have wisdom, but this doesn’t mean that he has been given a gift of the spirit.

And even a good and honorable individual, who hasn’t been baptized and received the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, but legitimately receives manifestations of the Holy Ghost sometimes, isn’t according to Joseph Smith in possession of the gifts of the Spirit bestowed upon the body of Christ spoken of in the scriptures. 

And revelations, visions, and prophecy are also frequently from sources other than God. So the fact that people have them is not proof that they are even under the influence of the Holy Ghost at all. Often times they are not. 

[Dario_M]

5 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

. 

What would baptism and the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and the restoration of the authority to perform these ordinances, if these things aren’t actually necessary to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost?

Baptism and receiving the holy ghost is always necessary to....receive the holy ghost. Every church does that on the same way. Not only the LDS church. 

I don't understand those people who think they have allready the holy ghost with them without doing those performances. 🤦‍♂️

[Dario_M]

4 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

the ordinances of baptism and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost are necessary. And the authority to perform these ordinances is only found within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. No other church or group has this autority. 

Whut??? (Drop the microphone🤣🎤)

Edited March 2, 2023 by Dario_M

[Navidad]

I find this conversation somewhat disconcerting, not because I disagree with the OP, but because of my understanding of the many Biblical references to the risks involved in speaking of the Holy Spirit in a way which grieves, causes sorrow, or pain to the Spirit. Attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to false spirits is, in the NT very risky. It is tantamount to blaspheming the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that using the Holy Spirit, and the Gift or gifts of the Holy Spirit as a validational device to prove the uniqueness or onlyness of any one church borders on grieving the Holy Spirit. Admonitions against the same are in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Hebrews, and Ephesians, just to name those that come to the top of my head. The Greek word lupeite (used for grief, grieve, create sorrow) or its derivatives as used in the New Testament are so strong that they are also used in non-Koiné Greek of the pain of a woman giving childbirth. Whether I have the Gift, gifts of the Holy Spirit is not the issue. I have peace about that, that no one can take away from me. The issue is using the Holy Spirit in a manner that grieves, limits, causes pain to, or implies the Spirit's work is of a false spirit when it is not.

Perhaps it is just in my tradition, but we are fairly regularly warned against limiting, speaking carelessly of, blaspheming (attributing the Spirit's work to false spirits), etc. We are even warned in the New Testament that it is more dangerous to do that, than speaking against the Son of Man - Christ the Savior.

The presence, work, gifts of the Holy Spirit are not ping pong balls to be batted back and forth across the table to demonstrate one's prowess in Scriptural knowledge, truth, or doctrine. The Holy Spirit manifested in Christians is indeed the very physical, visible presence of the Godhead on earth in this dispensation. We are the temple in which the Spirit dwells in this dispensation. I simply would caution against the blithe, certain, confident, assured use of the Spirit to prove a point, or validate one church above another. Validate your church sect (to use Grug's term) as the only if you must; but don't use the presence, absence, onlyness of the the Spirit as the means to do so. That is my caution.

Perhaps this doctrine of grieving the Spirit is not present in the LDS Church. I don't know. But it certainly concerns me in a thread like this. It is different from debating other things. In this sense I agree - the Holy Spirit is unique. Thanks for reading this. Best wishes to all.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Navidad

[Grug the Neanderthal]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to false spirits is, in the NT very risky.

Of course, but it's just as risky to attribute the work of false spirits to the Holy Ghost.

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

It seems to me that using the Holy Spirit, and the Gift or gifts of the Holy Spirit as a validational device to prove the uniqueness or onlyness of any one church borders on grieving the Holy Spirit.

I don't think it does. There must be some sign that distinguishes the true and living church of Christ from churches that aren't. And the gift of the Holy Ghost as given by the laying on have hands by those who actually have authority from God must of necessity actually bestow something upon the individual which cannot be obtained in any other way.

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Validate your church sect (to use Grug's term) as the only if you must; but don't use the presence, absence, onlyness of the the Spirit as the means to do so.

No one here is arguing that the only way anyone can have the influence of the Holy Ghost in their lives to any degree is to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that God only works through LDS people. Far from it. But as Joseph Smith said, "there is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost" that can only be received by the laying on of hands by those who have the Melchizedek priesthood. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

Of course, but it's just as risky to attribute the work of false spirits to the Holy Ghost.

I don't think it does. There must be some sign that distinguishes the truth church of Christ from churches that aren't. And the gift of the Holy Ghost as given by the laying on have hands by those who actually have authority from God must of necessity actually bestow something upon the individual which cannot be obtained in any other way.

No one here is arguing that the only way anyone can have the influence of the Holy Ghost in their lives to any degree is to be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or that God only works through LDS people. Far from it. But as Joseph Smith said, "there is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost" that can only be received by the laying on of hands by those who have the Melchizedek priesthood. 

It is not just as risky to attribute the work of false spirits to the Holy Ghost as it is to attribute the work of the Holy Ghost to false spirits.

The Holy Spirit is not a sign. The Holy Spirit is the presence of the Godhead here on earth at this time. We and others know we are Christians by our manifestation of the Gift and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. When you limit the work of the Spirit; you are limiting the Godhead. Methinks that is not a good thing for any believer, LDS or not to do.

You are validating my belief that you are limiting the work of the Holy Spirit in this dispensation by your second use of the word "only" in your third paragraph. You seem to have no fear of causing the Holy Spirit pain, grief, or limiting the Spirit's ability to do as the Spirit sees fit whenever and wherever. Because of the many Biblical admonitions against it, I certainly do.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Navidad

[Rain]

15 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

People can have charity, hope, faith, wisdom, knowledge, etc. to varying degrees without these being gifts of the Spirit.

Please tell me what the difference looks like between someone having charity and someone having the gift of the Spirit charity.

15 hours ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

But only members of the Lord’s church those who have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost following baptism and the laying on of hands by those who hold the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are bestowed with gifts of the Spirit.

 

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There must be some sign that distinguishes the true and living church of Christ from churches that aren't. And the gift of the Holy Ghost as given by the laying on have hands by those who actually have authority from God must of necessity actually bestow something upon the individual which cannot be obtained in any other way.

Okay Grug, provide some specific examples, preferably recent examples, of what the LDS church and its membership have done that evidence that it is in sole possession of gifts of the Spirit, and, therefore, Christ’s only church. 
 

 

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, Grug the Neanderthal said:

There must be some sign that distinguishes the true and living church of Christ from churches that aren't. And the gift of the Holy Ghost as given by the laying on have hands by those who actually have authority from God must of necessity actually bestow something upon the individual which cannot be obtained in any other way.

Okay Grug, provide some specific examples, preferably recent examples, of what the LDS church and its membership have done that evidence that it is in sole possession of gifts of the Spirit, and, therefore, Christ’s only church.