The Mysteries of the Spirit World

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

We focus quite a bit on the "assurance" of having the Holy Spirit (knowing it) based on the promise of God as I said previously. I would say yes, it can, at times be felt, but that is not the evidence or the assurance. I have no objection to the word "merging." The Holy Spirit acts in and for the non-LDS Christian exactly as I have heard described in the LDS tradition.

What is the evidence or the assurance?  Is it just based on the promises stated in the Bible?  Because the idea that you are "merged" with the Holy Spirit is not how we see it.  The Holy Ghost is a distinct individual, like God and Jesus Christ.  He can only exist in one place at one time but He can be felt everywhere (again, like God and Jesus Christ).  By being confirmed, we can receive His constant guidance but He doesn't dwell in our body or merge with us.  So our evidence of having the Holy Ghost is based on the comfort and inspiration He gives us.  It is possible for someone to be worthy for the Holy Ghost one day and then not be on the next day.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

In the Christian world, including the LDS, some syncretistic offshoots of Catholicism, and many other denominational variants of baptism, confirmations, I have seen a significant variety of responses to the experience itself. The majority of individuals (even in group rites) of those undergoing such an experience have exhibited little or no emotional or physical reaction. I have also observed joy, crying, bodily shaking, significant emotive reactions, often more on the part of the observers than the participants, especially parents of children undergoing such things. I myself conducted the experience in different cultures as well, in African tribal situations, African urban situations, Chinese Baptist situations, here in Mexico, even in the Pacific Ocean. I have observed in LDS, Pentecostal, Lutheran (both conservative and state-connected in Europe, many Catholic, non-denominational, Fundamentalist, Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopal, etc rites. Every LDS baptism I have observed has been of eight-year olds. The emotional reaction has been on the part of the family members, not the participants, both in the baptism and in the confirmation laying-on-of hands afterwards. Being around the families a lot, I have never observed a observable difference in the child before or after (not that I have tried to conduct a formalized version of that observation). I simply am (was) around them at picnics, baseball games, youth activities, family dinners, etc. That isn't a criticism or a denigration, it is just a comment. I would say the same about any child in any other tradition I have participated in or observed.

I wouldn't expect an observable difference before and after baptism/confirmation, either.  Especially since we don't receive the Holy Ghost immediately upon confirmation.  As I mentioned earlier, in the confirmation ordinance, we are told to receive Him which means we need to actively work on that.

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

The most interesting thing to me about the LDS experience is how to some small degree our presence in the ward, at times seemed to disrupt the doctrinal teaching or certainty regarding the Holy Spirit (as understood by them). Perhaps that is what concerned our new bishop about our participation? I don't know. He never said, nor did he ever participate in any of those conversations.

I am aware of a number of conversations, some  of which took place in our presence, including Monday evening of this very week about how the members of our ward and stake can "feel" the Spirit in my wife and I when speaking, singing, testifying, etc. when we are not LDS? That seems, to them to be in direct violation of what they are told about the limitations of non-LDS Christians. It seems delightful to some and disconcerting to others. Then others seek to solve the dilemma by referring back to the Light of Christ or the possibility of occasional visitations of the Holy Spirit in the lives of non-LDS Christians. That seems to be a doctrine that is evolving.

It is also not something I am used to. . . . I have never heard another Christian group that denies the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to all Christians of every other group. We have a little temple in our community. I once made a comment that the Holy Spirit was active in the temple whenever there were LDS Christians in it. Those listening (in a discussion in a hallway) looked rather strange at me. They seemed to have never thought that the Holy Spirit doesn't indwell buildings as well as individuals. To me, the Bible seems very clear on that, but to them the Holy Spirit indwells that building whether it is morning, noon, or night or no matter what day because it in and of itself is somehow sacred. Interesting! It made me rethink my position which is a good thing. It might have made some of them rethink their position, which in most cases is not a good thing. In Africa there were challenges to new believers who thought that the Holy Spirit surely must indwell trees as well, especially the Baobab tree which had lots of gravitas and religious significance to it.

I would say that we deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to everyone, including us.  The indwelling idea just doesn't seem to fit how we understand the Holy Ghost.  I searched the church's website for any use of "indwell" and can't find anything.  Maybe someone has used it at some point but I can't recall any.

As for feeling the Holy Ghost, everyone has that capacity, LDS, non-LDS Christians, and even non-Christian.  There is no limit on who can feel Him.  Otherwise, how would (LDS) missionary work?  It requires the person listening to the missionaries to feel the Spirit and act on His promptings.  When I say the temple is full of the Holy Ghost, it is because it has been dedicated as a sacred building so it is easier to feel His promptings there.  He could physically be there but it would be one temple at a time, not all at once.

I don't understand the confusion that you describe with members of your ward.  It is possible to feel the Holy Ghost when watching a play put on by non-Christians so why the confusion on feeling the Holy Ghost when another Christian sings or speaks?

[Leaf474]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Bring on the conversation, my friend. It is always good. All these questions get into a host of other questions.

Thanks for the nice post. I'm just going to be answering as I go through it, so I don't forget what I was going to say earlier 😃

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

What influence does one's belief on eternal security have on this conversation?

I don't think that it would have any, as far as who is a Christian from an Evangelical point of view.

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

How is the term God or god being defined?

The single omnipotent (or super strong) being who created all things.

That's my take on the Evangelical view of God.

 

A lowercase god can be a powerful human, an angel, or anything that is worshiped.

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Certainly there were judges in Israel who were mere mortals who were referred to as Elohim. Psalm 82 is merely one example of a reference that may or may not refer to them. For years, the standard Evangelical interpretation of Ps 82:1 was judges in Israel. No question about it. The Old Testament in other places and possibly Christ talks about them.

Yes, one true God, while other beings that may be called gods are of a significantly different quality. Again, the Evangelical view.

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

How do we define Evangelical is another question?

This definition here seems reasonable

2. Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the Bible as the sole source of religious authority, in salvation only through conversion and spiritual regeneration, and in the necessity of public witness to faith.

https://www.wordnik.com/words/evangelical

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Defining "Mormon" is even tricky.

I recommend we stick with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints 🙂

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Do you know of Evangelicals who believe that no individual Mormon can be a Mormon and be a Christian.

I think I know of some people like that 🙂

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Are you familiar with Messianic Judaism? Or in some circles Messianic Christianity? Jews who believe in Christ as the Messiah and Savior? Can someone be Jewish and Christian at the same time?

I think most evangelicals would say Yes.

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I was a professor and administrator at tn Evangelical college that had a major in the religion department for Messianic Christians. I taught the integration of psychology and theology which was an elective in their curriculum. I got to know lots of them. I can assure you they were absolutely confident they were both Christian and Jewish. Of course many Christians don't think that is possible; ditto for many Jews. That doesn't mean it isn't possible.

I can't imagine why an Evangelical would think someone couldn't be Christian and Jewish at the same time. Unless they have an odd idea of Judaism 😃

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

 Is the atonement limited to exclude Mormons (of every kind)?

I'm not sure what you mean there 🙂

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

We need to get back to the definition of gods and who or which God is or are worthy of worship. I will have to let our LDS friends here answer that, but you might even get some variance in the answer. I would ask until you have full clarification on the term "God" or "god" in LDS theology. As far as I know they believe in the Godhead - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three separate persons. I believe in the Godhead -Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - three separate persons united as one in purpose. Christ has a glorified body (He is embodied still), the other two don't (my view). Ask them about their view about the Godhead. Most importantly clarify who they believe is worthy of worship and who they pray to.

My impression from previous discussions with Saints is that only Heavenly Father is supposed to be worshiped.

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am interested in hearing more about your distinction between someone who is saved and someone who is a Christian.

A Christian is a follower of Christ, a saved person is whoever God decides to save. That's my view, though I had that when I was clearly an Evangelical 😀

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

Perhaps I could add to the confusion if I add someone who "lives the Christian life?" In that case I would suggest the vast number of members of the LDS church are Christian.

Sure, a person can live as a Christian and not be a Christian, just like a person can live as a Muslim and not fully submit to Allah. imo.

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think there is a huge difference between being a Christian and being a Lutheran (used as an example).

Yes, not the same thing, definitely some overlap.

 

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I have always identified on this forum and elsewhere as a Christian first, an Evangelical second, and a Mennonite way behind in third. Certainly there are others who identify their own faith group as most Christian, or the best example of Christianity, or . . . . . ? I'm like you. Gotta go!

Indeed, I mentioned the Jehovah's Witnesses earlier. They say they are Christian, and nobody else is 🙂

[Leaf474]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I guess it depends on whether you are an Evangelical who believes in eternal security, or not? I think you might get two different answers based on that. Is a person who commits to Christ as Savior and Lord and then doesn't live the Christian life evidence that the person wasn't "saved" in the first place? Is a person who commits to Christ and Savior and Lord and who can't speak about or who has no clear statement about the mystery of the atonement not a Christian? How about a Christian who never believes in the trinity as stated in a creed? Not a Christian. For example, I don't believe in all the points in the Nicene Creed. Am I not a Christian? Some might suggest that. What if I don't ever understand the virgin birth. Am I not a Christian? Gotta go!

I mean the people in Africa who have little contact with the Christian missionaries. Just enough to have a conversion. Over time, as they gain more knowledge, do they come to think of a single supreme being, God?

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, webbles said:

What is the evidence or the assurance?  Is it just based on the promises stated in the Bible?  Because the idea that you are "merged" with the Holy Spirit is not how we see it.  The Holy Ghost is a distinct individual, like God and Jesus Christ.  He can only exist in one place at one time but He can be felt everywhere (again, like God and Jesus Christ).  By being confirmed, we can receive His constant guidance but He doesn't dwell in our body or merge with us.  So our evidence of having the Holy Ghost is based on the comfort and inspiration He gives us.  It is possible for someone to be worthy for the Holy Ghost one day and then not be on the next day.

I wouldn't expect an observable difference before and after baptism/confirmation, either.  Especially since we don't receive the Holy Ghost immediately upon confirmation.  As I mentioned earlier, in the confirmation ordinance, we are told to receive Him which means we need to actively work on that.

I would say that we deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to everyone, including us.  The indwelling idea just doesn't seem to fit how we understand the Holy Ghost.  I searched the church's website for any use of "indwell" and can't find anything.  Maybe someone has used it at some point but I can't recall any.

As for feeling the Holy Ghost, everyone has that capacity, LDS, non-LDS Christians, and even non-Christian.  There is no limit on who can feel Him.  Otherwise, how would (LDS) missionary work?  It requires the person listening to the missionaries to feel the Spirit and act on His promptings.  When I say the temple is full of the Holy Ghost, it is because it has been dedicated as a sacred building so it is easier to feel His promptings there.  He could physically be there but it would be one temple at a time, not all at once.

I don't understand the confusion that you describe with members of your ward.  It is possible to feel the Holy Ghost when watching a play put on by non-Christians so why the confusion on feeling the Holy Ghost when another Christian sings or speaks?

It never ceases to amaze me how so many putatively knowledgeable Latter-Day Saints appear to be so ignorant of their own scriptures. Perhaps we should be spend more time reading and pondering the Standard Works rather than spending hours on discussion boards?

2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you AND WHICH SHALL DWELL IN YOUR HEART.

3 Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground. (Doctrine and Covenants 8 

Edited August 31, 2023 by teddyaware

[webbles]

11 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

It never ceases to amaze me how so many putatively knowledgeable Latter-Day Saints appear to be so ignorant of their own scriptures. Perhaps we should be spend more time reading and pondering the Standard Works rather than spending hours on discussion boards?

2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you AND WHICH SHALL DWELL IN YOUR HEART.

3 Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation; behold, this is the spirit by which Moses brought the children of Israel through the Red Sea on dry ground. (Doctrine and Covenants 8 

But that still isn't a permanent dwelling.  And the Holy Ghost doesn't enter into us because He is a separate entity.

Edited to add:

There's also a bunch of scriptures in the New Testament that talk about the Holy Spirit and Christ dwelling in our hearts.  For example Ephesians 3:17:

Quote

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being ^arooted and ^bgrounded in love,

Considering that Christ has a resurrected body, how would He "dwell" in my heart?

Edited August 31, 2023 by webbles

[Leaf474]

On 8/19/2023 at 4:03 PM, Navidad said:

I would enjoy it some of you here could walk me through (no pun intended) what exactly, in your doctrine of the post-death experience, will happen with or to me when I "wake up" in the spirit world? Someone on a thread recently talked about the "steps" a Christian and/or an atheist must go through at that time. How clear is your understanding of what will happen to me, or for that matter to a faithful member of the church at that time? My assumption in the question is that I will die without having received any salvific LDS ordinances in this world, nor with anyone having done any proxy work for me. What specifically will I see or do? Will my parents be there? My wife, if she proceeds me in death? Will a missionary greet me? Someone from the ward? Will my favorite pastor as a boy be there? Will there be LDS missionaries? Baptismal fonts? Will I see Christ, my GA emeritus friend? Will I be offered ordinances right away? Who will offer them to me? Is Christ involved at all at this point? I really am interested in your concept of the post-death experiences. It seem like the many funerals I have attended, the sermons and verbiage are pretty much like in any other church I have attended? Any books or literature, beyond the church website that you can recommend? Thanks so much . 

Hi again, Navidad, my man! This came to my mind this morning in response to your OP,

 

"The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” He who hears, let him say, “Come!” He who is thirsty, let him come. He who desires, let him take the water of life freely."

-Revelation 22:17

[manol]

On 8/30/2023 at 8:58 PM, webbles said:

There's also a bunch of scriptures in the New Testament that talk about the Holy Spirit and Christ dwelling in our hearts.  For example Ephesians 3:17:

Here is a somewhat expanded quote from Ephesians chapter 3, including parts of verses 18 and 19, which imo complete the thought Paul was expressing:

"That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able... to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God."

So herein Paul is describing the same Pure Love of Christ that Moroni describes in Moroni Chapter 7.  Paul takes it one step further and describes it as an indwelling; that is, "Christ dwell[ing] in your hearts".   This is apparently a pretty big deal, as the Pure Love of Christ (or "being rooted and grounded in love") = Christ dwelling in our hearts = being filled with all the fulness of God"! 

On 8/30/2023 at 8:58 PM, webbles said:

Considering that Christ has a resurrected body, how would He "dwell" in my heart?

It is not clear to me that "Christ is constrained to a physical body" (<- I realize that's not what you said) and "Christ may dwell in your heart" are compatible paradigms. 

I suggest that "Christ has a resurrected body" is not the same thing as "Christ is constrained to a physical body."   I suggest that being unbounded by space and time are evidently characteristics of a "resurrected body".  Note that Christ also said, "where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them", again indicating that Christ is not constrained by space and time. 

Also, "I am the vine and ye are the branches" implies a connection or union or oneness that transcends our normal thinking and awareness. 

And partaking of the Sacrament is arguably symbolic of Christ being WITHIN us, to the extent that we actually take upon ourselves his NAME.  And a name is indicative of IDENTITY.  Note that in the endowment ceremony, one of the NAMES in which covenants are made arguably ties back in to this. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by manol

[webbles]

36 minutes ago, manol said:

I suggest that "Christ has a resurrected body" is not the same thing as "Christ is constrained to a physical body."   I suggest that being unbounded by space and time are evidently characteristics of a "resurrected body".  Note that Christ also said, "where two or more are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them", again indicating that Christ is not constrained by space and time. 

A spirit being (such as the Holy Ghost) is bounded by space and time:

Quote

“As a Spirit personage the Holy Ghost has size and dimensions. He does not fill the immensity of space, and cannot be everywhere present in person at the same time. He is also called the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the Spirit of Truth, and the Comforter” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:38).

I would assume a resurrected being to be similarly bound.

But, the Light of Christ is unbounded, similarly the Power of the Holy Ghost.  So, I don't think it is a physical presence of Christ or the Holy Ghost, but instead the Light of Christ or the Power of the Holy Ghost that is dwelling in us or present with us.

[manol]

32 minutes ago, webbles said:

A spirit being (such as the Holy Ghost) is bounded by space and time:

Well, that's not the impression I get from the Doctrine and Covenants:

"in the presence of God... all things are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord." D&C 130:7

"[God] is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." D&C 88:41

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by manol

[webbles]

Just now, manol said:

Not according to the Doctrine and Covenants (emphasis mine):

"in the presence of God... all things are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord." D&C 130:7

"[God] is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever." D&C 88:41

 

James Talmage wrote in "Articles of Faith" (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42238 )

Quote

God is Omnipresent: There is no part of creation, however remote, into which He cannot penetrate; through the medium of the Spirit the Godhead is in direct communication with all things at all times. It has been said, therefore, that God is everywhere present at the same time; but it is unreasonable to suppose that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be in more than one place at one time. The senses of God are of infinite power, His mind of unlimited capacity; His eye can penetrate all space, His ear can comprehend every sound; His powers of transferring Himself from place to place are not limited; plainly, however, His person cannot be in more than one place at any one time. Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the fact of His materiality; indeed, an "immaterial being," under which meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction in terms. If God possesses a form, that form is of necessity of definite proportions and therefore of limited extension in space. It is therefore impossible for Him to occupy at one time more than one space of such limits; and[43] it is not surprising therefore to learn from the scriptures that He moves from place to place. Thus we read in connection with the account of the Tower of Babel, "And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower."[107] Again, God appeared to Abraham, and having declared Himself to be "the Almighty God," He talked with the patriarch, and established a covenant with him; then we read "And He left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham."[108]

 

[manol]

33 minutes ago, webbles said:

James Talmage wrote in "Articles of Faith" (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/42238 )

Talmage's argument hinges on the assumption that a divine being's person and a divine being's presence are two different things.  And maybe they are.

Perhaps you and I can agree that the presence of heavenly beings, whether they have bodies or not, is not constrained in space and time in the same way that our presence, as mortals, is now constrained? 

Edited September 4, 2023 by manol

[webbles]

6 minutes ago, manol said:

Talmage's argument hinges on the assumption that a divine being's person and a divine being's presence are two different things.  And maybe they are.

Perhaps you and I can agree that the presence of heavenly beings, whether they have bodies or not, is not constrained in space and time in the same way that our presence, as mortals, is now constrained? 

Not sure.  I'd say the Light of Christ can be felt everywhere and through it, we can feel God's presence.  But I'm not sure if His presence is not constrained.

[manol]

42 minutes ago, webbles said:

Not sure.  I'd say the Light of Christ can be felt everywhere and through it, we can feel God's presence.  But I'm not sure if His presence is not constrained.

How is God's presence being "constrained" consistent with "in the presence of God all things are manifest, past, present, and future"?  Or with "God is in all things, and through all things, and round about all things"? 

I realize this is not a concept the Church emphasizes, but it's there, in the Scriptures, in the canon of the church, in the modern-day revelation portion of that canon.

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by manol

[webbles]

7 minutes ago, manol said:

How is God's presence being "constrained" consistent with "in the presence of God all things are manifest, past, present, and future"?  Or with "God is in all things, and through all things, and round about all things"? 

I realize this is not a concept the Church emphasizes, but it's there, in the Scriptures, in the canon of the church, in the modern-day revelation portion of that canon.

 

That's not what the first verse says:

Quote

But ^athey reside in the ^bpresence of God, on a globe ^clike a ^dsea of glass and ^efire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.

It doesn't say God's presence is everywhere but that the angels are in the presence of God and all things are manifest there (which probably means they can see all things).

And I'd refer back to Elder Talmage for the second verse (from the beginning of what I quoted above):

Quote

There is no part of creation, however remote, into which He cannot penetrate; through the medium of the Spirit the Godhead is in direct communication with all things at all times. It has been said, therefore, that God is everywhere present at the same time; but it is unreasonable to suppose that the actual person of any one member of the Godhead can be in more than one place at one time. The senses of God are of infinite power, His mind of unlimited capacity; His eye can penetrate all space, His ear can comprehend every sound; His powers of transferring Himself from place to place are not limited;

 

[manol]

51 minutes ago, webbles said:

It doesn't say God's presence is everywhere but that the angels are in the presence of God and all things are manifest there (which probably means they can see all things).

I don't see any functional difference between (paraphrasing here) "God's presence is everywhere and everywhen" and "everywhere and everywhen are continually present to God". 

And D&C 88:41 DOES say, in so many words, that God is in all things.  How can God be "in all things" and not be "present"?  

Is it possible that "God has a body" does not necessarily mean that "God's presence is constrained in space and time to the location of that body"? 

Talmage seems to be saying that the "actual person" of God is different from the "presence" of God.  I think they are the same thing (and I concede that one aspect of God may very well be a physical body which has a physical location).  Is this the point upon which you and I disagree?  If so, I don't see much point in you and I arguing over whose definition of terms is best. 

Edited September 4, 2023 by manol

[Leaf474]

On 8/19/2023 at 4:03 PM, Navidad said:

I would enjoy it some of you here could walk me through (no pun intended) what exactly, in your doctrine of the post-death experience, will happen with or to me when I "wake up" in the spirit world? Someone on a thread recently talked about the "steps" a Christian and/or an atheist must go through at that time. How clear is your understanding of what will happen to me, or for that matter to a faithful member of the church at that time? My assumption in the question is that I will die without having received any salvific LDS ordinances in this world, nor with anyone having done any proxy work for me. What specifically will I see or do? Will my parents be there? My wife, if she proceeds me in death? Will a missionary greet me? Someone from the ward? Will my favorite pastor as a boy be there? Will there be LDS missionaries? Baptismal fonts? Will I see Christ, my GA emeritus friend? Will I be offered ordinances right away? Who will offer them to me? Is Christ involved at all at this point? I really am interested in your concept of the post-death experiences. It seem like the many funerals I have attended, the sermons and verbiage are pretty much like in any other church I have attended? Any books or literature, beyond the church website that you can recommend? Thanks so much . 

I think this is in keeping with the questions in the OP. Input from anyone welcome, of course. When does this take place? Is it when each individual person dies, or all at once for everyone?

Revelation 7:9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude, which no man could count, out of every nation and of all tribes, peoples, and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands.