The Mysteries of the Spirit World

[Nofear]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yet the Holy Spirit is our "comforter" and he is an immaterial cloud of spirit.  ...

Language = fun times with language for our theology. There is no reason to expect that the conventional definitions that our contemporary population has adopted is the same used anciently or even in the early days of the restored church. Example, the Pearl of Great Price refers to "intelligences" but the term is being applied to children of God with spirit body (whereas an "intelligence" is uncreate and predates its coupling to a spirit body). Similarly, the term Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, etc. isn't always used the same way in the scriptures. For clarity, we can define some terms (knowing that the term may use different language at different times):

Holy Ghost: member of the Godhead, a personage of spirit -- that is, has a spirit body of finite extension and only one location
Holy Spirit / Spirit of God: the influence of God (God the Father, Christ, and/or Holy Ghost), though sometimes used synonymously with Holy Ghost
Light of Christ: the influence of God that permeates and extends through all space that is accessible to all humans

Quite a bit of commentary has been given over the years about the difference between the Holy Spirit (as influence, not personage) and the Light of Christ. To my understanding, it is mostly one of magnitude and/or impact. Others are welcome to chime in with their perspectives as what I have said need not be construed as official canon.
 

[Leaf474]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

Joseph Smith, when speaking about the work for the dead wrote this:

“I will open your eyes in relation to the dead. All things whatsoever God in his infinite wisdom has seen fit and proper to reveal to us, while we are dwelling in mortality, in regard to our mortal bodies, are revealed to us in the abstract, and independent of affinity of this mortal tabernacle, but are revealed to our spirits precisely as though we had no bodies at all; and those revelations which will save our spirits will save our bodies," TPJS p475.

I extend the line of thinking a bit and suggest that the Holy Ghost speaks to our spirit body. Because we are bound to it, our physical body has some interaction with it (exactly how it works I don't know). Consequently, it is possible for two individuals to receive the same influence of the Holy Ghost and their perceptions vary as how their physical body responds to stimulus of their spirit body may not be identical. Would also explain why it's hard to pin down "feeling the Spirit". It varies from person to person and event to event.

Thanks for the input 🙂

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I don’t think so, but what do I know. The point I was responding to is that having a body does not mean he can relate to us more than not having a body.

This whole line of inquiry invariably ends up in paradox. Logic can only take us so far, and then it breaks down. It is often in this breakdown, beyond the language upon which logic relies, that I feel greater union with God.

I don’t believe this line of inquiry causes logic to break down in the slightest. The undeniable fact of the matter is that the Lord Jesus Christ proves beyond all doubt that it’s possible for God to have a physical body and yet be filled with the fullness of the Godhead. This means that if one member of the Godhead can have a physical body without that body negativity impacting his omniscience, omnipresence and divinity in the slightest, it demonstrates that if the Father were to take a physical body upon himself that it wouldn’t impede him in his work or detract from his divinity in any way. With all the aforesaid is being true, what actual advantage does the Father gain by choosing to remain bodiless?

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 9:8-9)

Edited August 24, 2023 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

There's just one substance, matter. It exists in different states of "refinement".

Yes, or alternatively, there is no need for the word/ concept "substance" which is only useful when comparing different substances.

So what I sometimes call "substance theology" ( a la Aristotle, Aquinas et al) becomes incoherent.

Not to mention alchemy, and the whole "substance vs appearance" tension.

Hocus Pocus! Gone! 😳

And so Hegel, then Kant, then fast forward to William James can use only "experience" as "reality"- then forward to Pragmatism in the USA and Phenomenology on the continent.

And that includes religious experience, and so we have personal revelation as "reality"- as "real" as any human experience including qualia.

It's just INCREDIBLE how all this falls together when you see it all as a coherent approach to religion!

You seem to be one who might see it, if you want to take it farther!

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

The point I was responding to is that having a body does not mean he can relate to us more than not having a body.

What I said was, I think, that WE can relate easier to a God who is embodied. 

Further there is the immanent vs transcendent issue; I believe it would be contradictory to imagine a being who was both at the same time.

But I get it that some things must be taken on faith, and of course there ARE mysteries in ALL religions and words cannot "correspond to reality".

I am simply seeing it MY WAY, which everyone has a right to do!

And besides I am a postmodernist which means that "my truth" doesn't have to agree with "your truth".

All of us need to follow our own paths, even if we do not comprehend all the others.  We can agree to disagree!

It's all only words, that's all!

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

I don’t believe this line of inquiry causes logic to break down in the slightest. The undeniable fact of the matter is that the Lord Jesus Christ proves beyond all doubt that it’s possible for God to have a physical body and yet be filled with the fullness of the Godhead. This means that if one member of the Godhead can have a physical body without that body negativity impacting his omniscience, omnipresence and divinity in the slightest, it demonstrates that if the Father were to take a physical body upon himself that it wouldn’t impede him in his work or detract from his divinity in any way. With all the aforesaid is being true, what actual advantage does the Father gain by choosing to remain bodiless?

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 9:8-9)

Your chapter and verse is mistaken.

It's Colossians 2:8-19 KJV

Edited August 25, 2023 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

That's interesting, thanks for the input 🙂

 

The Holy Ghost doesn't have a body, does he? How then does he interact with us?

Remember Spirit IS matter.  He has a body of spirit and so communicates with our spirits.

[MiserereNobis]

53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Further there is the immanent vs transcendent issue; I believe it would be contradictory to imagine a being who was both at the same time.

 

Yep, which is why I said that this line of inquiry leads to paradox. But my faith, my paradigm, is that the closest language and logic can come to understanding God is through paradox,  because language and logic actually break down once we reach God.

God is the singularity that defies the laws of language.

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's all only words, that's all!

And most of the time I like reading your words 😁

[MiserereNobis]

45 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Your chapter and verse is mistaken.

It's Colossians 2:8-19 KJV

But aren’t you trying to spoil everyone through your post modern philosophy? 😛

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Navidad said:

There is a growing concept among Evangelicals that creation ex-nihilo and the use of the Hebrew "Barah" means God took pre-existent matter and material that was without form and substance (function) and gave it function, believing that "without form and substance" meant without function, meaning, or purpose. In Gen 1 creation God took all that was pre-existent and gave it meaning and function in supporting and sustaining life. That is very different from a belief that "Barah" meant creation from nothing. "The times, they are a changin'." We aren't in the fifties anymore!

No, we are postmodern, and Pragmatism is the only way to create functional paradigms, which are the only way to make sense of what used to be "mysteries"

God has a purpose for all he does.

We have not even seen the full implementations of the Restoration yet.

And if you look at the dates, guys like Hume and Kant showed up just in time to prepare us culturally for the culture to change toward relational concepts of truth, instead of Cartesian Dualism, which never was a help for religion.

The Restoration was specifically created for these times, and your evidence can be seen to imply that culturally, it is already influencing all of Christianity.

Lds theology, with its stress on personal revelation and personal truth, is the perfect match for our postmodern era.

[Navidad]

17 hours ago, Nofear said:

Quite a bit of commentary has been given over the years about the difference between the Holy Spirit (as influence, not personage) and the Light of Christ. To my understanding, it is mostly one of magnitude and/or impact. Others are welcome to chime in with their perspectives as what I have said need not be construed as official canon.

Good early morning from Chihuahua. I think one of the differences between the Holy Spirit and the Light of Christ, for some Saints is in its use as a distancing mechanism. I say "some" because I don't know if it is for many or a few. . . . My experience and example is from our (my wife's and mine) experiences in the ward and in various LDS encounters (conferences, MHA, talks I have given, family reunion talks, etc.). Here is how it goes . . . .

Saint #1: "My, Mrs. Navidad is a wonderful Godly lady. Her comments and character really reflect a Godliness and close walk with the Holy Spirit."

Saint #2: "Well, that can't be; remember that she is not a member!"

Saint #1: "Oh, right, I keep forgetting that! You are right it can't be that" But it sure seems more than just an occasional visit with or prompting by the Spirit."

Saint #2: Well, its not anything personal! It's just our doctrine, you know!"

Saint #3: I know what it is. She has the Light of Christ! You know, that which is available to everyone!"

Saint #1: "That's right! I think she must make maximum use of the Light of Christ in her life. That explains her apparent Godliness as a non-member! I sure like it when she makes comments in RS!"

Saint #2: "I enjoyed her Sacrament talk this morning, didn't you? I really wanted to say I could feel the Spirit!" Did you see the Area President on the stand? He was smiling the whole time! Do you think he realized she isn't a member?"

Saint #1: Well, he gave her a hug afterwards. I wonder if he knew!

Saint #3: It was wonderful. It is amazing what someone can do when they make maximum use of the Light of Christ available to the non-believer. It's almost as if they have the Gift of the Spirit!"

Saint #2: Almost. . . . Well, it is not anything personal! It's just our doctrine, you know!  Sssh! Here comes her husband! Didn't you enjoy his solo last week in Sacrament? I could really feel the  . . . . . oh never mind!


 

[Leaf474]

14 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes, or alternatively, there is no need for the word/ concept "substance" which is only useful when comparing different substances.

So what I sometimes call "substance theology" ( a la Aristotle, Aquinas et al) becomes incoherent.

Not to mention alchemy, and the whole "substance vs appearance" tension.

Hocus Pocus! Gone! 😳

And so Hegel, then Kant, then fast forward to William James can use only "experience" as "reality"- then forward to Pragmatism in the USA and Phenomenology on the continent.

And that includes religious experience, and so we have personal revelation as "reality"- as "real" as any human experience including qualia.

It's just INCREDIBLE how all this falls together when you see it all as a coherent approach to religion!

You seem to be one who might see it, if you want to take it farther!

Is the idea that since all is one, the goal is not so much to become like God or to become a God, but to realize that you are already a God or God?

[Leaf474]

13 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

What I said was, I think, that WE can relate easier to a God who is embodied. 

Further there is the immanent vs transcendent issue; I believe it would be contradictory to imagine a being who was both at the same time.

But I get it that some things must be taken on faith, and of course there ARE mysteries in ALL religions and words cannot "correspond to reality".

I am simply seeing it MY WAY, which everyone has a right to do!

And besides I am a postmodernist which means that "my truth" doesn't have to agree with "your truth".

All of us need to follow our own paths, even if we do not comprehend all the others.  We can agree to disagree!

It's all only words, that's all!

Wow, I didn't know a person could be both a post-modernist and LDS at the same time. But I'm here to learn, so if that's the case, then cool 🙂

 

I'm assuming that you are LDS, based on what you wrote in your profile,

"My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism."

 

Now I'm going to have to look up Pragmatism at Wikipedia 😃

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good early morning from Chihuahua. I think one of the differences between the Holy Spirit and the Light of Christ, for some Saints is in its use as a distancing mechanism. I say "some" because I don't know if it is for many or a few. . . . My experience and example is from our (my wife's and mine) experiences in the ward and in various LDS encounters (conferences, MHA, talks I have given, family reunion talks, etc.). Here is how it goes . . . .

Saint #1: "My, Mrs. Navidad is a wonderful Godly lady. Her comments and character really reflect a Godliness and close walk with the Holy Spirit."

Saint #2: "Well, that can't be; remember that she is not a member!"

Saint #1: "Oh, right, I keep forgetting that! You are right it can't be that" But it sure seems more than just an occasional visit with or prompting by the Spirit."

Saint #2: Well, its not anything personal! It's just our doctrine, you know!"

Saint #3: I know what it is. She has the Light of Christ! You know, that which is available to everyone!"

Saint #1: "That's right! I think she must make maximum use of the Light of Christ in her life. That explains her apparent Godliness as a non-member! I sure like it when she makes comments in RS!"

Saint #2: "I enjoyed her Sacrament talk this morning, didn't you? I really wanted to say I could feel the Spirit!" Did you see the Area President on the stand? He was smiling the whole time! Do you think he realized she isn't a member?"

Saint #1: Well, he gave her a hug afterwards. I wonder if he knew!

Saint #3: It was wonderful. It is amazing what someone can do when they make maximum use of the Light of Christ available to the non-believer. It's almost as if they have the Gift of the Spirit!"

Saint #2: Almost. . . . Well, it is not anything personal! It's just our doctrine, you know!  Sssh! Here comes her husband! Didn't you enjoy his solo last week in Sacrament? I could really feel the  . . . . . oh never mind!


 

This is your ward's culture.

I cannot IMAGINE such conversations in my ward.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Is the idea that since all is one, the goal is not so much to become like God or to become a God, but to realize that you are already a God or God?

1. Realize that YOUR spirit was individually made by God to be his son/ daughter.  We often speak of being a brother/sister of Jesus.

2. As such, we CAN become as God is, after an eternity- perhaps- of emulating Him.

It is a very literal belief, shocking as that may be. In fact scripture names some biblical figures who are "now Gods".

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

Wow, I didn't know a person could be both a post-modernist and LDS at the same time. But I'm here to learn, so if that's the case, then cool 🙂

 

I'm assuming that you are LDS, based on what you wrote in your profile,

"My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism."

 

Now I'm going to have to look up Pragmatism at Wikipedia 😃

William James is another to look up.

I like the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Is the idea that since all is one, the goal is not so much to become like God or to become a God, but to realize that you are already a God or God?

The goal is to EMULATE God/Jesus.

We are definitely not "already" Gods, except in embryo

I like the caterpillar to butterfly analogy 

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good early morning from Chihuahua. I think one of the differences between the Holy Spirit and the Light of Christ, for some Saints is in its use as a distancing mechanism. I say "some" because I don't know if it is for many or a few. . . . My experience and example is from our (my wife's and mine) experiences in the ward and in various LDS encounters (conferences, MHA, talks I have given, family reunion talks, etc.). Here is how it goes . . . . [snip]

The ability to recognize good and receive promptings is not a temporary thing  that is only "permanently" available to just those with the Gift of the Holy Ghost. There are other functions of the Gift of the Holy Ghost beyond that... but not the point of the thread and so perhaps another time.

[Navidad]

52 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I cannot IMAGINE such conversations in my ward.

OK.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Is the idea that since all is one, the goal is not so much to become like God or to become a God, but to realize that you are already a God or God?

Chapter 5: The Grand Destiny of the Faithful

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-5-the-grand-destiny-of-the-faithful?lang=eng

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

The ability to recognize good and receive promptings is not a temporary thing  that is only "permanently" available to just those with the Gift of the Holy Ghost. There are other functions of the Gift of the Holy Ghost beyond that... but not the point of the thread and so perhaps another time.

Thanks. Well what you all are talking about isn't the point of the thread either. I know because I started the thread. But don't stop. I enjoy reading everything (almost) that you all have to say. If you would like to opine a bit more about other functions of the Gift of the Holy Ghost that are not available to me as a non-LDS Christian I would be interested to hear. Take care,

Edited August 25, 2023 by Navidad

[pogi]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Good early morning from Chihuahua. I think one of the differences between the Holy Spirit and the Light of Christ, for some Saints is in its use as a distancing mechanism. I say "some" because I don't know if it is for many or a few. . . . My experience and example is from our (my wife's and mine) experiences in the ward and in various LDS encounters (conferences, MHA, talks I have given, family reunion talks, etc.). Here is how it goes . . . .

Saint #1: "My, Mrs. Navidad is a wonderful Godly lady. Her comments and character really reflect a Godliness and close walk with the Holy Spirit."

Saint #2: "Well, that can't be; remember that she is not a member!"

Saint #1: "Oh, right, I keep forgetting that! You are right it can't be that" But it sure seems more than just an occasional visit with or prompting by the Spirit."

Saint #2: Well, its not anything personal! It's just our doctrine, you know!"

Saint #3: I know what it is. She has the Light of Christ! You know, that which is available to everyone!"

Saint #1: "That's right! I think she must make maximum use of the Light of Christ in her life. That explains her apparent Godliness as a non-member! I sure like it when she makes comments in RS!"

Saint #2: "I enjoyed her Sacrament talk this morning, didn't you? I really wanted to say I could feel the Spirit!" Did you see the Area President on the stand? He was smiling the whole time! Do you think he realized she isn't a member?"

Saint #1: Well, he gave her a hug afterwards. I wonder if he knew!

Saint #3: It was wonderful. It is amazing what someone can do when they make maximum use of the Light of Christ available to the non-believer. It's almost as if they have the Gift of the Spirit!"

Saint #2: Almost. . . . Well, it is not anything personal! It's just our doctrine, you know!  Sssh! Here comes her husband! Didn't you enjoy his solo last week in Sacrament? I could really feel the  . . . . . oh never mind!


 

I am curious as to your views on the Holly Ghost.  Do you view it as something that everybody is born with, or is it a later endowment that only those born again of the spirit possess?  I am curious how you would have a similar conversation about a Muslim or Hindu who "reflects a Godliness and close walk with the Holy Spirit."  I know you can't speak for all of the rest of Christianity, but what would be the general conversation you might expect in such a scenario.   

[Navidad]

39 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am curious as to your views on the Holly Ghost.  Do you view it as something that everybody is born with, or is it a later endowment that only those born again of the spirit possess?  I am curious how you would have a similar conversation about a Muslim or Hindu who "reflects a Godliness and close walk with the Holy Spirit."  I know you can't speak for all of the rest of Christianity, but what would be the general conversation you might expect in such a scenario.   

Hi my friend. I can answer part of your question, but not the other part. Everything I say in response is said with provisional certainty. I do not believe that everybody is born with the Holy Spirit indwelling them. I don't think I have ever heard of any Christians or members of any other faith who believe that. Of course, I may be wrong.

Second, I believe that the belief in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a uniquely Christian belief. I have never heard a Muslim or a Hindu express belief that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. So, It doesn't make sense to me to attribute to them what they don't attribute to themselves (as far as I know). Its like asking me if I believe I will "return" to the Father? I don't believe I ever was with the Father prior to this life, so how do I answer that, except to say "No I don't believe I will ever "return to the Father" since I don't believe I was ever there in a prior time. My understanding is that the Muslim belief is that the Holy Spirit exists, more like an angel, but not as a God or a part of God. I think a Hindu would hold that there is something divine in all matter, but without a concept of a Holy Spirit as Christians have. Again, I could be wrong. I would have no problem saying that a Muslim or a Hindu manifests a Godliness in their life, but I would never say they have a close walk with the Holy Spirit, because that is not something that they would even claim.

In my mind it would be like asking me if Muslims can speak in tongues (glossolalia), a gift often attribute to the Spirit. Well, no I don't think Muslims can speak in tongues, because as far as I know, they would not speak in tongues because they make a pretty strict divide between the divine and the human. If glossolalia is a divine thing, then it is reserved for the divine and it would be almost blasphemous to try and practice it. I am not by nature or faith a restrictivist. Therefore I wouldn't deny them such a gift by my belief, but find it difficult to answer when I don't think eve they would think they would or could practice it. 

The difference in our situation is that I claim to have the gifts of the Holy Spirit via the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Absent certain specific LDS ordinances, the LDS church denies me that. I can't count how many times I have been told that I have a strong Light of Christ instead of the Holy Spirit. I don't take that as a positive since I don't even believe in the Light of Christ in LDS terms. Maybe it is akin to the divine spark, I don't know. The LDS church grants me what I don't claim, and denies me what I do claim. Interesting! Take care.

 

[teddyaware]

34 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I can answer part of your question, but not the other part. Everything I say in response is said with provisional certainty. I do not believe that everybody is born with the Holy Spirit indwelling them. I don't think I have ever heard of any Christians or members of any other faith who believe that. Of course, I may be wrong.

Second, I believe that the belief in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a uniquely Christian belief. I have never heard a Muslim or a Hindu express belief that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. So, It doesn't make sense to me to attribute to them what they don't attribute to themselves (as far as I know). Its like asking me if I believe I will "return" to the Father? I don't believe I ever was with the Father prior to this life, so how do I answer that, except to say "No I don't believe I will ever "return to the Father" since I don't believe I was ever there in a prior time. My understanding is that the Muslim belief is that the Holy Spirit exists, more like an angel, but not as a God or a part of God. I think a Hindu would hold that there is something divine in all matter, but without a concept of a Holy Spirit as Christians have. Again, I could be wrong. I would have no problem saying that a Muslim or a Hindu manifests a Godliness in their life, but I would never say they have a close walk with the Holy Spirit, because that is not something that they would even claim.

In my mind it would be like asking me if Muslims can speak in tongues (glossolalia), a gift often attribute to the Spirit. Well, no I don't think Muslims can speak in tongues, because as far as I know, they would not speak in tongues because they make a pretty strict divide between the divine and the human. If glossolalia is a divine thing, then it is reserved for the divine and it would be almost blasphemous to try and practice it. I am not by nature or faith a restrictivist. Therefore I wouldn't deny them such a gift by my belief, but find it difficult to answer when I don't think eve they would think they would or could practice it. 

The difference in our situation is that I claim to have the gifts of the Holy Spirit via the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Absent certain specific LDS ordinances, the LDS church denies me that. I can't count how many times I have been told that I have a strong Light of Christ instead of the Holy Spirit. I don't take that as a positive since I don't even believe in the Light of Christ in LDS terms. Maybe it is akin to the divine spark, I don't know. The LDS church grants me what I don't claim, and denies me what I do claim. Interesting! Take care.

 

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world? (John 1)

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I can answer part of your question, but not the other part. Everything I say in response is said with provisional certainty. I do not believe that everybody is born with the Holy Spirit indwelling them. I don't think I have ever heard of any Christians or members of any other faith who believe that. Of course, I may be wrong.

Second, I believe that the belief in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a uniquely Christian belief. I have never heard a Muslim or a Hindu express belief that they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. So, It doesn't make sense to me to attribute to them what they don't attribute to themselves (as far as I know). Its like asking me if I believe I will "return" to the Father? I don't believe I ever was with the Father prior to this life, so how do I answer that, except to say "No I don't believe I will ever "return to the Father" since I don't believe I was ever there in a prior time. My understanding is that the Muslim belief is that the Holy Spirit exists, more like an angel, but not as a God or a part of God. I think a Hindu would hold that there is something divine in all matter, but without a concept of a Holy Spirit as Christians have. Again, I could be wrong. I would have no problem saying that a Muslim or a Hindu manifests a Godliness in their life, but I would never say they have a close walk with the Holy Spirit, because that is not something that they would even claim.

In my mind it would be like asking me if Muslims can speak in tongues (glossolalia), a gift often attribute to the Spirit. Well, no I don't think Muslims can speak in tongues, because as far as I know, they would not speak in tongues because they make a pretty strict divide between the divine and the human. If glossolalia is a divine thing, then it is reserved for the divine and it would be almost blasphemous to try and practice it. I am not by nature or faith a restrictivist. Therefore I wouldn't deny them such a gift by my belief, but find it difficult to answer when I don't think eve they would think they would or could practice it. 

The difference in our situation is that I claim to have the gifts of the Holy Spirit via the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Absent certain specific LDS ordinances, the LDS church denies me that. I can't count how many times I have been told that I have a strong Light of Christ instead of the Holy Spirit. I don't take that as a positive since I don't even believe in the Light of Christ in LDS terms. Maybe it is akin to the divine spark, I don't know. The LDS church grants me what I don't claim, and denies me what I do claim. Interesting! Take care.

I see what you are saying, but I don't think it is unusual to project our beliefs (like the light of Christ, for example) onto others.   For instance, I think all Christians would agree that Hindu's were created by God, are part of His plan, that Christ paid for their sins allowing them to repent and accept Him, and that they will all be judged of God at final judgment.   Whether a Hindu claims it as their belief or not, we hold that it is true and let them know as much through proselytization.  In Mormonesque, we call it "building upon common beliefs".   For example, if a missionary was talking with a Hindu who may believe in the divine in all matter, the missionary would help them identify that as the light of Christ.  We believe in and experience the same divine spirit but call it by different names.   

In regards to the indwelling, when does the "indwelling" occur?  Is it something that is required for salvation?  Do all Christians experience it at some point?  How does one go about getting it?  IS it something that when received you have it with you always?  Can someone be influenced by the spirit who has not had the "indwelling"?

   

 

Edited August 25, 2023 by pogi