Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The LDS and Revival


Recommended Posts

Posted
55 minutes ago, Calm said:

The gift of discernment helps us recognize the moral choices and spiritual junctures before us. We use the gift and power of the Holy Ghost and ask for grace to align ourselves with the Lord's will to apply that knowledge and choice.

Posted
3 hours ago, Navidad said:

OK. Fair enough. I just don't have anything in my theological briefcase that could allow for the sense or feeling of the spirit to occur if the Spirit is not present in the person speaking, singing, testifying, or in other cases vacuuming, raking leaves, etc. Acts of kindness are human works, unless they are done by someone indwelt by the Holy Spirit, then they many become indeed a work of the Spirit which can be felt by others.

Certainly an emotional or even rational response can occur, but not the real live Spirit if that same Spirit is not present in the person. Perhaps our difference in briefcases is that mine only has room for the indwelling of the Spirit and yours has room for the Spirit to come and go on a fairly routine or regular basis, dependent on something, I am not sure what.

I am simply using the term "briefcase" as a metaphor for the "baggage" (not as nice a term in colloquial use) that we each carry based on our learnings from our respective faiths. I think it helps us to understand, honor, and receive each other's beliefs (baggage or briefcases). I think that is a part of consensus building, which is more important to human dialogue and understanding than agreement building. I like the consensus that is often reached on this forum, even if I am most often in the minority of the outcome. Being part of a consensus frees me from either having to agree or stand alone.

I think, as Mark has pointed out, we have different meanings for the same word - like priesthood and authority for another two examples. We both use the same words with completely differing meaning. Or - even salvation. Or sanctification - Or exaltation (which I don't have at all in my briefcase).

 

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

In my understanding, the Holy Spirit is only present in the individuals attending or participating in a Sacrament or Baptist Sunday morning service, not in the air above the folks, not in the room, or under the tree in the air or leaves.

This came to my mind

Genesis 1:2

The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

Posted
1 hour ago, Calm said:

But we don’t believe that lacking the Gift of the Holy Ghost means they never have the Holy Ghost with them.

I understand that and I appreciate your patience. However, I have nothing in my theological briefcase that helps me understand what you are saying. The Gift of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are the manifestations of that indwelling. Do you disagree? I still don't understand what more the Gift of the Holy Ghost means in LDS theology or pneumatology.

I don't understand this statement or its etiology at all: "Today people who are not members of the Church learn by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true (see Moroni 10:4–5). But that initial testimony leaves them if they do not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. They do not receive the continuing assurance that can come to those who have the gift of the Holy Ghost."

What does it mean that it "leaves them"?  When then does it come back and visit them? Under what circumstances? Why? and Why not? For what purpose? When it visits, does it manifest itself to others who are members and who have the Gift? If so, does it manifest itself in the same way as it would in members who have the Gift? I think I remember hearing or reading that the Holy Spirit will also leave LDS members if they are unfaithful in their life and in fulfilling their covenants? Is that right? Is that kind of "leaving" the same as what the non-LDS Christian experiences? I have read (I think) that not everyone who has hands laid on them, receives the Gift. Is that correct? So then why do some LDS get it and some don't? And some non-LDS get it for some time on some occasions, but not in an indwelling sense?

I find the simple statements in Ch 21 of the website - "The Gift of the Holy Spirit" to be reductionist and simplistic. I have McConkie and Millet's book The Holy Ghost. I have underlined and read it backwards and forwards. It speaks about discernment. It is utterly lacking in explaining the LDS exclusive claims about the Gift of the Holy Spirit and non-members. In one place on one page (7) it simply says " . . . the gift of the Holy Ghost is available only to baptized members of the Lord's Church through the ordinance of the laying on of hands. Though the influence of the Holy Ghost may be felt by one who has not been baptized, such an influence is temporary and fleeting."  There it is again, a simple reductionist statement that offers no explanation or amplification of temporary or fleeting, or why that is the position of the church, or what the implications are to the non-member for the rest of their Christian experience. No Biblical support for the position other than a reference to Cornelius, which is way out of context.

I understand that members of all faiths simply make statements that they believe to be true because it is what they have been taught since childhood. But when it is something that leaves 98.4% of all of Christianity out of the equation, there has to be some really powerful Biblical reasons and justification for such a statement. Without that, methinks it is simply an identity statement and a distancing mechanism, designed to create separation and uniqueness. Then I sing in a service and a nice lady comes up and tells me how the sense of the Spirit brought tears to her eyes while I was singing. It makes my head spin, because the next likely statement out of her mouth will be "Well, of course you don't have the Gift of the Holy Ghost!" Well, do I when I sing, but not when I vacuum? Do I when I give a Sacrament talk or testimony, but not when I am over at their house for Sunday dinner? My confusion comes from my lived experience as an inside-outsider. I hope you can receive and honor that! Thanks.

Posted
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We do not use this term; please define.

You know by the spirit, period.

For me there is no confusion between "just me" and the spirit - it's the "still small voice" which would be, for me, like confusing my wife's voice with my daughter's voice.

Different modes of thinking- what does "discernment" add?

It's kind of creating another category of "revelation" that is unnecessary.  It's the spirit, period.

If you are confused, it's not the "spirit".  It shows it's own passport.

;)

 

I had in mind 1 Corinthians 12:10,

...and to another discerning of spirits...

 

So, whatever Paul meant by that. Different people have different views of what he meant 😀

 

Looking at the link @Tacenda gave, it sounds similar to what I heard in Evangelical circles.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/discernment-gift-of?lang=eng

Posted
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

We do not use this term; please define.

PS I appreciate you asking for definitions 👍

 

There's a school of thought - I think it's associated with Bertrand Russell - that says that most disagreements disappear once the terms are defined.

 

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You know by the spirit, period.

For me there is no confusion between "just me" and the spirit - it's the "still small voice" which would be, for me, like confusing my wife's voice with my daughter's voice.

Different modes of thinking- what does "discernment" add?

It's kind of creating another category of "revelation" that is unnecessary.  It's the spirit, period.

If you are confused, it's not the "spirit".  It shows it's own passport.

;)

 

 

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Thanks for that. Just to note a difference to avoid confusion, some Evangelicals - especially Pentecostals - would say it includes knowing not just the character of a person, but whether the person in that moment is speaking by the Holy Ghost or an evil/deceptive spirit.

 

Possibly even knowing whether a person is schizophrenic or is actually demon possessed.

________

Edited to add:

Peter has something revealed to him by God

Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

 

Then probably in that same conversation this occurs

"But Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!"

Matthew 16

Edited by Leaf474
Posted
10 minutes ago, Leaf474 said:

BTW, in LDS thought, can someone who hasn't been baptized (by someone with priesthood authority) have the gift of discerning of spirits?

Yes and no.  Joseph Smith said only those who have been confirmed can have a gift but then he also used various gifts before his confirmation (gift of interpretation of tongues).  So, I would say that you can have any of the gifts but it can't be fully used until you have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

There's a school of thought - I think it's associated with Bertrand Russell - that says that most disagreements disappear once the terms are defined.

TOTALLY! He and Wittgenstein in the Tractatus- in many ways their work (Wittgenstein anyway) allows me rationally to see religion in that way.

Wittgenstein later expanded his views and reversed all of philosophy, which is primarily now about language and how it can confuse logic.

We call it "spirit" others might call all of this "intuition" and the man on the street might tell you to "follow your gut"

It's all the same sort of thing.

To think you must be LDS to "feel the spirit" is circular reasoning.

Like "To feel the Spirit, you have to feel what LDS people call 'feeling the spirit' "

Not very illuminating ;)

Folks hereabouts are saying things like :

"To feel the spirit, you have to have the spirit within you"

Totally circular reasoning.

To follow your gut, I guess you have to have guts inside you.

Heavy, dude. Have another toke.

Everyone feels the spirit but call it by different names

Ultimately all that is said is ... said!

That is the Babel Bible.

It's 100% language that is automatically ambiguous 

Now THAT is the curse of BABEL!! 😉

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Navidad said:

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are the manifestations of that indwelling.

Sometimes, sometimes not manifestations of the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  I am not sure that “indwelling” as understood by evangelicals is identical to the Gift of the Holy Ghost that is given through the ordinance.  I personally believe there are other ways the Spirit can dwell in someone.

I don’t know, having been too long since I was 8, what it is like to live without the Gift and I have no doubt my experience of it as a child would be very different than an adult’s experience of the Spirit.  So I currently see two untestable for me possibilities of what the Gift is; the first is it is something different than one experiences when the Spirit is with one but one lacks the ordinance (what this difference is, I can’t tell you; I think it would take a face to face extended conversation with several nonmembers to hear their experiences with the Spirt at the very least) or second, that the ordinance makes connecting with the Holy Ghost more accessible, perhaps even instinctual, which mean those without the Gift can experience the same level of interaction with the Spirit, the same intensity, awareness, the same gifts; they just have to be more conscious, intentional in their efforts…which has some advantages in my view just as the Gift has some advantages.

I believe LDS doctrine accommodates my view, does not contradict it, though some interpretations of doctrine might.

Edited by Calm
Posted
3 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

I had in mind 1 Corinthians 12:10,

...and to another discerning of spirits...

 

So, whatever Paul meant by that. Different people have different views of what he meant 😀

 

Looking at the link @Tacenda gave, it sounds similar to what I heard in Evangelical circles.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/discernment-gift-of?lang=eng

Google is my friend. ;)

Posted
3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I understand that members of all faiths simply make statements that they believe to be true because it is what they have been taught since childhood. But when it is something that leaves 98.4% of all of Christianity out of the equation, there has to be some really powerful Biblical reasons and justification for such a statement. Without that, methinks it is simply an identity statement and a distancing mechanism, designed to create separation and uniqueness. Then I sing in a service and a nice lady comes up and tells me how the sense of the Spirit brought tears to her eyes while I was singing. It makes my head spin, because the next likely statement out of her mouth will be "Well, of course you don't have the Gift of the Holy Ghost!" Well, do I when I sing, but not when I vacuum? Do I when I give a Sacrament talk or testimony, but not when I am over at their house for Sunday dinner? My confusion comes from my lived experience as an inside-outsider. I hope you can receive and honor that! Thanks.

These comments all resonate with me. I think we as members will ultimately have a difficult time reliably distinguishing between those who have the gift of the HS and those who simply can feel the HS at times but who do no yet have the gift. I have yet to hear a solid description of the difference. Occasionally (frequently?) you'll hear someone who has converted to the faith proclaim, "Oh you better believe there's a difference!" though I don't know if even they are able to articulate what that difference is. And even if they do articulate it, it may simply be more a function of their own experience and not a universal statement of how it really works.

If the LDS gospel is true, there must be some difference though I don't know yet what that is.

Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

These comments all resonate with me. I think we as members will ultimately have a difficult time reliably distinguishing between those who have the gift of the HS and those who simply can feel the HS at times but who do no yet have the gift. I have yet to hear a solid description of the difference. Occasionally (frequently?) you'll hear someone who has converted to the faith proclaim, "Oh you better believe there's a difference!" though I don't know if even they are able to articulate what that difference is. And even if they do articulate it, it may simply be more a function of their own experience and not a universal statement of how it really works.

If the LDS gospel is true, there must be some difference though I don't know yet what that is.

This may be unrelated, but I remember when I no longer knew the church was true anymore and how I actually didn't feel awkward around those that were inactive or non LDS anymore. I use to always feel that way, feeling different than them. Not judging, just different. It may be put in members' heads that they are different than others not in the faith. I didn't always like it. It has been a nice feeling to be around those not in my faith and knowing they are as good as the members in the church. I always knew it, but in my head there was a difference between us. And it didn't sit well, or felt like I couldn't relate to those not of my faith. I'm sure many in the LDS church don't have this problem. That is why I probably wasn't a good LDS, needed to be separate in order to be decent. As weird as that sounds.

Edited by Tacenda
Posted
50 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This may be unrelated, but I remember when I no longer knew the church was true anymore and how I actually didn't feel awkward around those that were inactive or non LDS anymore. I use to always feel that way, feeling different than them. Not judging, just different. It may be put in members' heads that they are different than others not in the faith. I didn't always like it. It has been a nice feeling to be around those not in my faith and knowing they are as good as the members in the church. I always knew it, but in my head there was a difference between us. And it didn't sit well, or felt like I couldn't relate to those not of my faith. I'm sure many in the LDS church don't have this problem. That is why I probably wasn't a good LDS, needed to be separate in order to be decent. As weird as that sounds.

Well said!

Posted
On 9/25/2023 at 9:24 AM, Leaf474 said:

 

God's spirit is like the wind; we can feel its effect, but we can't tell where it came from or where it's going. The resulting effects are sometimes what we wouldn't expect -

 

As an offshore sailor it's my job to know where the wind is coming from and what it's resulting effects are going to be for the health of my vessel and the souls on board. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Vanguard said:

These comments all resonate with me. I think we as members will ultimately have a difficult time reliably distinguishing between those who have the gift of the HS and those who simply can feel the HS at times but who do no yet have the gift. I have yet to hear a solid description of the difference. Occasionally (frequently?) you'll hear someone who has converted to the faith proclaim, "Oh you better believe there's a difference!" though I don't know if even they are able to articulate what that difference is. And even if they do articulate it, it may simply be more a function of their own experience and not a universal statement of how it really works.

If the LDS gospel is true, there must be some difference though I don't know yet what that is.

I do not think it is anyone's job to [paraphrasing your post] "reliably distinguish between those who have the gift of the Holy Ghost [a formal term] and those who simply can feel the Holy Spirit at times but who do not yet have the gift." I think that is least of our worries.

I'll attempt to offer a description of the difference (though my point of view would leave out the "simply" since it is nothing to sneeze at!): The power of the Holy Ghost witnesses to anyone open to receive the gospel truth, and if they act in faith to repent and be baptized and confirmed, they receive the gift of the Holy Ghost by covenant (which is why I think it is a more formal term). The gift of the Holy Ghost is the privilege to receive, conditional on God's satisfaction and grace with our end of the covenant, continual and increasing witness in the form of guidance, inspiration, purification, sanctification, with the end of becoming one with Christ.

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

BTW, in LDS thought, can someone who hasn't been baptized (by someone with priesthood authority) have the gift of discerning of spirits?

Yes, to the end of coming unto Christ. Someone who hasn't been baptized will not use this gift in conjunction with the gift of the Holy Ghost, which follows baptism. 

This post above Posted just now suggests that gifts of the Spirit are on a par with the power of the Holy Ghost (and the light of Christ, which is the basis for our conscience) in relation to the gift of the Holy Ghost. There are limits to their benefit if not acted upon in faith to repent, be baptized and confirmed, etc.

Edited by CV75
Posted
5 hours ago, Navidad said:

I understand that and I appreciate your patience. However, I have nothing in my theological briefcase that helps me understand what you are saying. The Gift of the Holy Spirit is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are the manifestations of that indwelling. Do you disagree? I still don't understand what more the Gift of the Holy Ghost means in LDS theology or pneumatology.

I don't understand this statement or its etiology at all: "Today people who are not members of the Church learn by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true (see Moroni 10:4–5). But that initial testimony leaves them if they do not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. They do not receive the continuing assurance that can come to those who have the gift of the Holy Ghost."

What does it mean that it "leaves them"?  When then does it come back and visit them? Under what circumstances? Why? and Why not? For what purpose? When it visits, does it manifest itself to others who are members and who have the Gift? If so, does it manifest itself in the same way as it would in members who have the Gift? I think I remember hearing or reading that the Holy Spirit will also leave LDS members if they are unfaithful in their life and in fulfilling their covenants? Is that right? Is that kind of "leaving" the same as what the non-LDS Christian experiences? I have read (I think) that not everyone who has hands laid on them, receives the Gift. Is that correct? So then why do some LDS get it and some don't? And some non-LDS get it for some time on some occasions, but not in an indwelling sense?

I find the simple statements in Ch 21 of the website - "The Gift of the Holy Spirit" to be reductionist and simplistic. I have McConkie and Millet's book The Holy Ghost. I have underlined and read it backwards and forwards. It speaks about discernment. It is utterly lacking in explaining the LDS exclusive claims about the Gift of the Holy Spirit and non-members. In one place on one page (7) it simply says " . . . the gift of the Holy Ghost is available only to baptized members of the Lord's Church through the ordinance of the laying on of hands. Though the influence of the Holy Ghost may be felt by one who has not been baptized, such an influence is temporary and fleeting."  There it is again, a simple reductionist statement that offers no explanation or amplification of temporary or fleeting, or why that is the position of the church, or what the implications are to the non-member for the rest of their Christian experience. No Biblical support for the position other than a reference to Cornelius, which is way out of context.

I understand that members of all faiths simply make statements that they believe to be true because it is what they have been taught since childhood. But when it is something that leaves 98.4% of all of Christianity out of the equation, there has to be some really powerful Biblical reasons and justification for such a statement. Without that, methinks it is simply an identity statement and a distancing mechanism, designed to create separation and uniqueness. Then I sing in a service and a nice lady comes up and tells me how the sense of the Spirit brought tears to her eyes while I was singing. It makes my head spin, because the next likely statement out of her mouth will be "Well, of course you don't have the Gift of the Holy Ghost!" Well, do I when I sing, but not when I vacuum? Do I when I give a Sacrament talk or testimony, but not when I am over at their house for Sunday dinner? My confusion comes from my lived experience as an inside-outsider. I hope you can receive and honor that! Thanks.

I think that to believe something because it is what you were taught since childhood, without a proactive effort to confirm it, is too passive to serve as a good reason or excuse, or even "an identity statement and a distancing mechanism, designed to create separation and uniqueness." And it may just be laziness, which is also an effective distancing mechanism, or a survival mechanism to fit in. Who knows (who can discern it? :D ). 

A technical, doctrinal point: while you do not have the gift of the Holy Ghost as we define / describe it (see my post above Posted just now), you certainly have the capacity to foster the spiritual benefits of any actions you perform in good faith according to your Christian beliefs. Your friends recognize this, and other spiritual gifts and talents you use.

Posted

I am interested in the development of the concept of the Light of Christ in LDS orthodoxy. From whence did it come? I understand William Penn understood it to be an important concept. Who initiated this concept in Mormonism and then how was it developed into a doctrinal reality? McConkie and Millet discuss it as a reality, but they don't get into the history of the idea. Was it credited to early church fathers, or . . . . ? Thanks.

Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, CV75 said:

There are limits to their benefit if not acted upon in faith to repent, be baptized and confirmed, etc.

The problem I have with this idea is the vast majority of humanity’s existence, the vast majority of humanity have never had the opportunity to be baptized and confirmed with the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  I find it hard to believe God withheld his Spirit at all from those who constantly sought him because they couldn’t be baptized.

Edited by Calm
Posted
On 9/23/2023 at 2:32 PM, Calm said:

believe Mark was saying there is no need to create a special event to promote revival in individuals because it is built into our system of faith already with the renewal of our covenants weekly or with attending the temple, which members often do to seek personal revelation, though some create new sacred spaces for themselves by going somewhat apart from others into nature or even a beautiful quiet place in the middle of a city where they will be alone so they can cry out to the Lord in their hearts.

Thanks, exactly.

And others agree with you going by the rep point count

Posted (edited)
53 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am interested in the development of the concept of the Light of Christ in LDS orthodoxy. From whence did it come? I understand William Penn understood it to be an important concept. Who initiated this concept in Mormonism and then how was it developed into a doctrinal reality? McConkie and Millet discuss it as a reality, but they don't get into the history of the idea. Was it credited to early church fathers, or . . . . ? Thanks.

It is mentioned in a revelation (D&C 88:6) :

Quote

6 He that aascended up on high, as also he bdescended below all things, in that he ccomprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the dlight of truth;

7 Which truth shineth. This is the alight of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was bmade.

8 As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made;

9 As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made;

10 And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you astand.

11 And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your aunderstandings;

Is that what you are looking for?  Or do you mean later understanding of it after the revelation?

Edited by webbles
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am interested in the development of the concept of the Light of Christ in LDS orthodoxy. From whence did it come? I understand William Penn understood it to be an important concept. Who initiated this concept in Mormonism and then how was it developed into a doctrinal reality? McConkie and Millet discuss it as a reality, but they don't get into the history of the idea. Was it credited to early church fathers, or . . . . ? Thanks.

It is a great Doctrine imo, philosophically.  God's intelligence pervades the universe and in effect "communicates" with all sentient beings.  It is a "sense" and a way to communicate with that being we call "Father".

Interesting research on the "God Gene"

This would make the light of Christ similar to say, color perception.  Color is received in light/ energy but is translated in our minds/brain into the richness of purple our the outcry of yellow and red.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

I see it similarly to Frank Jackson's "qualia"

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted
3 minutes ago, webbles said:

It is mentioned in a revelation (D&C 88:6) :

Is that what you are looking for?  Or do you mean later understanding of it after the revelation?

Yep! That's it imo exactly.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I am interested in the development of the concept of the Light of Christ in LDS orthodoxy. From whence did it come? I understand William Penn understood it to be an important concept. Who initiated this concept in Mormonism and then how was it developed into a doctrinal reality? McConkie and Millet discuss it as a reality, but they don't get into the history of the idea. Was it credited to early church fathers, or . . . . ? Thanks.

If you go here, you can scan for words in conference talks going back to 1850’s.  This won’t tell you who started talking about it, but can help show when it became more focused on, a more active part of our doctrine.

https://www.lds-general-conference.org

Unfortunately I can’t link to a search, but here is a screenshot.  You click on a decade and it will show some of the sentences the word/ phrase is in.  Don’t use “” for the search, btw.  It doesn’t work as expected, no hits if I did that.

image.thumb.png.72ef8e78ff9a46ae122d1c5eef956daa.png

Edited by Calm

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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