The LDS and Revival

[Calm]

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.

Is this along the lines you were looking for?

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2021/08/this-is-the-light-of-christ/

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks, exactly.

And others agree with you going by the rep point count

Does a rep point indicate agreement? I have never used it in that context . . . perhaps I am using it incorrectly? I use it if I like a post, appreciate the work that went into it, the thought that went into it, or the fact that I thought it was well-written. Should I be more focused on giving them if I agree with them in order to conform to forum protocol? 

[Navidad]

1 hour 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?

I guess I am looking for the post-revelation interpretation that has so greatly broadened this one verse. I assume if the preamble to the chapter says this is a revelation through Joseph Smith that the intent is that it came directly from God to Joseph Smith who then repeated it to someone to write down, or he wrote it down himself. But then it seems to have become a fairly significant concept/doctrine in the church as its meaning was interpreted over time by someone or someones at some time or some times.  Thanks for asking.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Navidad

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

Thanks. it really seems to be something that leaped in importance just in the twenty-first century. Almost as many hits in the past twenty-two years as in the first 150. I will have to dig into that tool. I have always believed that LDS history and doctrine are inexorably linked.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Navidad

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Does a rep point indicate agreement?

Not always.  I will give it for thoughtful posts even if I don’t agree sometimes.

[webbles]

I'll try and work through your questions.  Hopefully this makes sense.  To start with, you ask for a powerful Biblical reason but that isn't what we really worry about.  We have a latter-day prophet who can pronounce God's word just as powerfully as the Bible can.  So, for us, pointing to a statement from a latter-day prophet is just as powerful.  So I will reference our additional canon and teachings from latter-day prophets.

7 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 believe anyone can have one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost.  It has nothing to do with whether they are Christians.  For example, on the day of the Pentecost, those listening to Peter understood what he said.  They received the gift of interpretation of tongues.  None had previously been baptized or were even believers of Christ.  Yet they had that gift.  So gifts are not a manifestation of an indwelling.  The idea of "indwelling" is outside of my theological briefcase.

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

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?

That's a lot of questions.  First, we are taught that Holy Ghost can leave in D&C 130:23:

Quote

23 A man may receive the ^aHoly Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not ^btarry with him.

So, what does "not tarry" mean and "descend" mean?  The most common analogy that is used is a radio.  We each have a personal radio that can be in tune with the Holy Ghost or out of tune.  When it in tune, then we can hear Him and He is with us.  When we are out of tune, we can't hear Him and He isn't with us.  A person who has been confirmed (confirmation is the ordinance of the laying on of hands) has the Holy Ghost on one of the speed dials on the radio.  A person who hasn't been confirmed doesn't.  When they do tune into the station, they get manifestations of the Holy Ghost but the tuning goes off after some time.  This is an analogy so it isn't perfect but I've heard it multiple times.

Every confirmed person has access to the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  It might present itself immediately or it might be more silent.  Christ told the Nephites in 3 Nephi 9: 20 :

Quote

20 And ye shall offer for a ^asacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I ^bbaptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

Notice how He said that the Lamanites were baptized by the Holy Ghost but didn't realize it.  So even though they received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, it was not apparent to them.

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

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'm guessing the reference to Cornelius is from a teaching from Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith said (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith - Chapter 7) :

Quote

“There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized, which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the Gospel, but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him. [See Acts 10:1–48.] Until he obeyed these ordinances and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, according to the order of God, he could not have healed the sick or commanded an evil spirit to come out of a man, and it obey him; for the spirits might say unto him, as they did to the sons of Sceva: ‘Paul we know and Jesus we know, but who are ye?’ [See Acts 19:13–15.]”

Is that the reference they mentioned?  Since Joseph Smith taught this and he is a prophet, then it has just as much authority as the Bible does.  So we don't need to reach out to extra Biblical support.  But, there are other stories in the Bible that have been used:

• Acts 2 - On the Day of Pentecost those listening felt the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:37 says they were "pricked in their heart") but Peter tells them that they still need to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
• Acts 8 - Simon tries to buy the priesthood which is needed to confirm people and he is rebuked
• Acts 19 - People with invalid priesthood are baptizing but not confirming.  Paul teaches them of the correct method and baptizes them and confirms them with the correct priesthood.

So, people need the priesthood to confirm people, it can't be bought from others, and people can feel the Holy Ghost before they receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

7 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.

The idea of needing proper authority to confirm people is taught by prophets of God in the latter-day since the beginning of the restoration.  If they are prophets of God, then it would be God creating the identity statement or distancing statement.  It does depend on whether Joseph Smith and his successors are prophets.

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

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 find what she did was poor taste.  It feels like judging people which we shouldn't do.  But for her to feel the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with whether you (or any other speaker or singer) has the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  They are not connected.

[manol]

8 hours ago, Navidad said:

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?

 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

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 don't expect my experiences to have much if any credibility to an LDS audience; as a former member I fall into a traditionally rather unsavory category. So consider the following to be at best an opinion:

To provide some context:  When I was a missionary we used something called “the Holy Ghost approach”. Briefly, we told the person they were going to feel the Holy Ghost and then later in the discussion we asked them what they felt. I would estimate that about three-fourths of the time the investigator(s) confirmed that they felt the Holy Ghost. There were times when I did not feel it, and in those instances I asked my companion if he felt it, and I cannot remember a single time when he did not, so my recollection is that at least one of us did every single time.

Fast forward forty-something years, to today. I've been outside the Church for over two decades. It is not obvious to me that my connection with the Holy Spirit (<- I prefer that term; maybe I watched too much Casper the Friendly Ghost as a kid) has been inhibited, though I acknowledge it MAY have been. If so, it has not been enough for me to notice. It MIGHT take more effort for me to “connect” than for a member, and if so that's okay with me, because I believe that I have learned along the way.

I would say that my capability to “connect” has progressed during my post-membership era, which imo is the direction we're all supposed to be moving in, though I don't have enough data to say whether my progression has been inhibited or accelerated or neither, but I suspect it's "neither".  My instinct is that the principles progression is based on are effectively universal, and that God can find ways to work towards the growth of our soul wherever we may be. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by manol

[Navidad]

44 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this along the lines you were looking for?

https://www.timesandseasons.org/index.php/2021/08/this-is-the-light-of-christ/

Yes thanks so much. This article clearly shows the evolution of the concept into the twentieth century - actually into my lifetime (I am old)! Of the whole article, I find the last sentence the most interesting - In many ways, this shift in the 20^th century has made it sensible to revert the text of Section 130 to its original form, indicating that the Holy Ghost, as a person, cannot dwell in our hearts, since we tend to teach that it’s the influence of the Holy Ghost, delivered by the power of the Light of Christ, that is actually dwelling in our hearts.  I never heard of Chad Nielson - can what he says in that sentence be taken for modern LDS doctrine on the subject? That is a pretty astounding statement. According to this last statement no one, LDS or not has the Holy Ghost indwelling them, I guess because he goes back to the older definition of the Holy Ghost as person, not a spirit. Is that why the church uses the term Ghost instead of Spirit? What dwells in our hearts (metaphorical use)? An influence delivered by the Light of Christ that we all have. So when an LDS person feels the spirit, they are feeling an influence via the Light of Christ which we all have? Since 1950 or so, the most that can be hoped for in LDS doctrine is that even the baptized LDS church member has an influence of the Spirit delivered by the Light of Christ. No part of the Godhead indwells the Christian, LDS or not! What a fascinating historical development of a doctrine . . . if he is correct. That seems really heterodox. I am not sure I have ever heard that from the stand in our ward. Would the pew Mormon understand and agree with him? The Times and Seasons is a pretty important LDS source document for almost 200 years, is it not?  Take care.

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes thanks so much. This article clearly shows the evolution of the concept into the twentieth century - actually into my lifetime (I am old)! Of the whole article, I find the last sentence the most interesting - In many ways, this shift in the 20^th century has made it sensible to revert the text of Section 130 to its original form, indicating that the Holy Ghost, as a person, cannot dwell in our hearts, since we tend to teach that it’s the influence of the Holy Ghost, delivered by the power of the Light of Christ, that is actually dwelling in our hearts.  I never heard of Chad Nielson - can what he says in that sentence be taken for modern LDS doctrine on the subject? That is a pretty astounding statement. According to this last statement no one, LDS or not has the Holy Ghost indwelling them, I guess because he goes back to the older definition of the Holy Ghost as person, not a spirit. Is that why the church uses the term Ghost instead of Spirit? What dwells in our hearts (metaphorical use)? An influence delivered by the Light of Christ that we all have. So when an LDS person feels the spirit, they are feeling an influence via the Light of Christ which we all have? Since 1950 or so, the most that can be hoped for in LDS doctrine is that even the baptized LDS church member has an influence of the Spirit delivered by the Light of Christ. No part of the Godhead indwells the Christian, LDS or not! What a fascinating historical development of a doctrine . . . if he is correct. That seems really heterodox. I am not sure I have ever heard that from the stand in our ward. Would the pew Mormon understand and agree with him? The Times and Seasons is a pretty important LDS source document for almost 200 years, is it not?  Take care.

I don’t know Chad Nielsen either.  And they have a variety posting on Times and Seasons, so I don’t know how closely he follows traditional thought.  I haven’t been able to do more than scan it either, so can’t even share my opinion of it.  Will try tomorrow if I can.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

The Times and Seasons is a pretty important LDS source document for almost 200 years, is it not?

The Times and Seasons website is not the same thing as the church publication Times and Seasons.  The church only published the Times and Seasons till 1846.  The website isn't official.   But I agree with what the website says.  I've even said it several times here in conversations with you.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Because "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," they will, by the virtue of Christ's Atonement, also have the opportunity to do so in the spirit world. We are one contiguous life from God's perspective, and so He withholds nothing. As demonstrated in the parable of the laborers, the plan of salvation is not a competition or a matter of mortal timing and sense of justice.

Similarly, "the vast majority of humanity have had the opportunity" to discern good from evil by virtue of their conscience (the light of Christ "which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things"). This is no small blessing.

Whatever portion (let's say it is "the vast majority") of humanity "who constantly sought him" in their sojourn upon the earth will surely find him, sooner or later, but from the Lord's perspective, they find Him and thus receive "whatsoever is right," which is what He does what He wille with what is His own, even if "the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen."

This is an eternal principle, because there are limits to the benefit of the gifts of the Spirit and the light of Christ if not acted upon in faith to repent, be baptized and confirmed, etc. in the spirit world as well as here. Some believe this principle holds post-resurrection as well. The ministrations in the kingdoms of glory reflect how people are willing to act, find and receive Him accordingly (e.g., and simply a model for illustration: telestial, the light of Christ by degrees; the terrestrial, the gifts of the Spirit by degrees; the celestial, the companionship of the Holy Ghost, who may well be resurrected by then  !; the Church of the Firstborn, life with the resurrected Son and Father).

 

[rodheadlee]

10 hours ago, Navidad said:

Does a rep point indicate agreement? I have never used it in that context . . . perhaps I am using it incorrectly? I use it if I like a post, appreciate the work that went into it, the thought that went into it, or the fact that I thought it was well-written. Should I be more focused on giving them if I agree with them in order to conform to forum protocol? 

That's how I use them. When I vote up I agree, when I vote down I disagree. It has nothing to do with liking the person. I like everyone here. 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

That's how I use them. When I vote up I agree, when I vote down I disagree. It has nothing to do with liking the person. I like everyone here. 

Thanks for answering my question. I upvoted you even though I think I disagree with you! I hope you don't mind!

[Leaf474]

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

 

19 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's 100% language that is automatically ambiguous 

Now THAT is the curse of BABEL!! 😉

I hear what you're saying. Now... Does that apply to the language in Scripture? Does it apply to the talks - language - at General Conference?

 

 

[Leaf474]

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

This may be unrelated, but I remember when I no longer knew the church was true anymore...

Is that the same as currently thinking the church isn't true? Or is it more like saying the church could be true, you're just not sure now? Or maybe some parts are true, even most parts, but some parts not?

 

Or are these questions not appropriate? 🙂

 

Going along with the thread, do you feel that a revival would help you, give you a testimony about the church? Or that a revival might actually move you further away?

 

16 hours ago, Tacenda said:

...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.

 

[Leaf474]

15 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

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. 

That's true! Now... At the time that Jesus said that, did they have the sophisticated technology that we have today that tells us where the wind comes from? Yes, they could say it's coming from the east, but where in the East?

 

Similarly, can you, just by walking out on deck without any equipment, say where the air mass that's moving over the vessel will be 24-hours later?

 

What I think Jesus is getting at is that we can't always predict the actions of the Spirit. Are these the actions we expect today of someone upon whom the spirit of the Lord has come?

Judges 14:19

The Spirit of the Lord came mightily on him, and he went down to Ashkelon and struck thirty men of them. He took their plunder, then gave the changes of clothing to those who declared the riddle. His anger burned, and he went up to his father’s house.

[Leaf474]

12 hours ago, webbles said:

I'll try and work through your questions.  Hopefully this makes sense.  To start with, you ask for a powerful Biblical reason but that isn't what we really worry about.

 

12 hours ago, webbles said:

We have a latter-day prophet who can pronounce God's word just as powerfully as the Bible can.

Is that a common sentiment among the Saints, that the current prophet can pronounce God's word just as powerfully as the Bible can?

 

12 hours ago, webbles said:

So, for us, pointing to a statement from a latter-day prophet is just as powerful.  So I will reference our additional canon and teachings from latter-day prophets.

I believe anyone can have one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost.  It has nothing to do with whether they are Christians.  For example, on the day of the Pentecost, those listening to Peter understood what he said.  They received the gift of interpretation of tongues.  None had previously been baptized or were even believers of Christ.  Yet they had that gift.  So gifts are not a manifestation of an indwelling.  The idea of "indwelling" is outside of my theological briefcase.

That's a lot of questions.  First, we are taught that Holy Ghost can leave in D&C 130:23:

So, what does "not tarry" mean and "descend" mean?  The most common analogy that is used is a radio.  We each have a personal radio that can be in tune with the Holy Ghost or out of tune.  When it in tune, then we can hear Him and He is with us.  When we are out of tune, we can't hear Him and He isn't with us.  A person who has been confirmed (confirmation is the ordinance of the laying on of hands) has the Holy Ghost on one of the speed dials on the radio.  A person who hasn't been confirmed doesn't.  When they do tune into the station, they get manifestations of the Holy Ghost but the tuning goes off after some time.  This is an analogy so it isn't perfect but I've heard it multiple times.

Every confirmed person has access to the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  It might present itself immediately or it might be more silent.  Christ told the Nephites in 3 Nephi 9: 20 :

Notice how He said that the Lamanites were baptized by the Holy Ghost but didn't realize it.  So even though they received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, it was not apparent to them.

I'm guessing the reference to Cornelius is from a teaching from Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith said (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith - Chapter 7) :

Is that the reference they mentioned?  Since Joseph Smith taught this and he is a prophet, then it has just as much authority as the Bible does.  So we don't need to reach out to extra Biblical support.  But, there are other stories in the Bible that have been used:

• Acts 2 - On the Day of Pentecost those listening felt the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:37 says they were "pricked in their heart") but Peter tells them that they still need to receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.
• Acts 8 - Simon tries to buy the priesthood which is needed to confirm people and he is rebuked
• Acts 19 - People with invalid priesthood are baptizing but not confirming.  Paul teaches them of the correct method and baptizes them and confirms them with the correct priesthood.

So, people need the priesthood to confirm people, it can't be bought from others, and people can feel the Holy Ghost before they receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

The idea of needing proper authority to confirm people is taught by prophets of God in the latter-day since the beginning of the restoration.  If they are prophets of God, then it would be God creating the identity statement or distancing statement.  It does depend on whether Joseph Smith and his successors are prophets.

I find what she did was poor taste.  It feels like judging people which we shouldn't do.  But for her to feel the Holy Ghost has nothing to do with whether you (or any other speaker or singer) has the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  They are not connected.

 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Leaf474

[Leaf474]

12 hours ago, manol said:

 

 

I don't expect my experiences to have much if any credibility to an LDS audience; as a former member I fall into a traditionally rather unsavory category. So consider the following to be at best an opinion:

To provide some context:  When I was a missionary we used something called “the Holy Ghost approach”. Briefly, we told the person they were going to feel the Holy Ghost and then later in the discussion we asked them what they felt. I would estimate that about three-fourths of the time the investigator(s) confirmed that they felt the Holy Ghost. There were times when I did not feel it, and in those instances I asked my companion if he felt it, and I cannot remember a single time when he did not, so my recollection is that at least one of us did every single time.

Fast forward forty-something years, to today. I've been outside the Church for over two decades. It is not obvious to me that my connection with the Holy Spirit (<- I prefer that term; maybe I watched too much Casper the Friendly Ghost as a kid) has been inhibited, though I acknowledge it MAY have been. If so, it has not been enough for me to notice. It MIGHT take more effort for me to “connect” than for a member, and if so that's okay with me, because I believe that I have learned along the way.

I would say that my capability to “connect” has progressed during my post-membership era, which imo is the direction we're all supposed to be moving in, though I don't have enough data to say whether my progression has been inhibited or accelerated or neither, but I suspect it's "neither".  My instinct is that the principles progression is based on are effectively universal, and that God can find ways to work towards the growth of our soul wherever we may be. 

If I may ask, how does your memory of feeling the Holy Spirit as a missionary compare to your feeding the Holy Spirit today?

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

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 joined the church at 31 years of age and a student of philosophy, but having had experiences that convinced me without a doubt that there IS/WAS a Holy Spirit.

I had a powerful experience then at the words "Receive the Holy Ghost".

I can say that I feel that sensation more regularly now, it seems to me to be like learning a new language.

You understand communications you never knew existed before because they just seemed like "background noise".

I recall riding busses in countries where I did not understand the language and all I heard was babbling.  As I studied the language, suddenly I would pick up a word or two here and there, then more words, then sentences, as I progressed.

That is the way it was for me.

The "volume" is not louder or easier to hear, it is now communication rather than "noise".  It's a new "language".

Edited September 27, 2023 by mfbukowski

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Leaf474 said:

14 hours ago, webbles said:

 

Is that a common sentiment among the Saints, that the current prophet can pronounce God's word just as powerfully as the Bible can?

Yes. We believe in open canon.  Today's prophets have as much authority in speaking God's word as those in the Bible.

There is some debate among some members (not sure if it is a majority or minority) on how to know when the prophet is talking as a prophet or as a man.  But I think the vast majority of members would agree that when the prophet speaks as a prophet, then it is a authoritative as the Bible.  Possibly even more since it is from the current prophet.

In the last General Conference, one of the Seventy discussed this https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/16haynie?lang=eng

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

Is that the same as currently thinking the church isn't true? Or is it more like saying the church could be true, you're just not sure now? Or maybe some parts are true, even most parts, but some parts not?

 

Or are these questions not appropriate? 🙂

 

Going along with the thread, do you feel that a revival would help you, give you a testimony about the church? Or that a revival might actually move you further away?

 

 

I hold a relationship with the Savior or my maker closely in a more intimate way or by myself kind of way so I don't think I'd like a revival. My LDS background would feel very uncomfortable with swaying hands reaching up or shouting things or being a holy roller type and would make me feel more sacrilegious because it's so out of my normal way. But not saying that's bad for those that learned differently. 

I believe in a God and I believe that Jesus lived and made the world a better place and did sacrifice for us. 

I no longer believe in a one true church.

[manol]

2 hours ago, Leaf474 said:

If I may ask, how does your memory of feeling the Holy Spirit as a missionary compare to your feeding the Holy Spirit today?

Imo the feelings themselves are recognizable as essentially the same, and range from “peace” to “electrifying”.

Ironically I think I experience more of the “companionship” aspect now than I did as a member, but I think it's because of lessons learned about the effects of attention and intention.

19 hours 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.

That's similar to my experience.  Must admit I like feeling free to draw my circle of inclusion as big as I want. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by manol

[Leaf474]

25 minutes ago, webbles said:

Yes. We believe in open canon.  Today's prophets have as much authority in speaking God's word as those in the Bible.

There is some debate among some members (not sure if it is a majority or minority) on how to know when the prophet is talking as a prophet or as a man.  But I think the vast majority of members would agree that when the prophet speaks as a prophet, then it is a authoritative as the Bible.  Possibly even more since it is from the current prophet.

In the last General Conference, one of the Seventy discussed this https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2023/04/16haynie?lang=eng

 

Very interesting link 🙂 Does Nelson say, “Thus saith the Lord God”?

[Leaf474]

17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hold a relationship with the Savior or my maker closely in a more intimate way or by myself kind of way so I don't think I'd like a revival. My LDS background would feel very uncomfortable with swaying hands reaching up or shouting things or being a holy roller type and would make me feel more sacrilegious because it's so out of my normal way. But not saying that's bad for those that learned differently. 

I believe in a God and I believe that Jesus lived and made the world a better place and did sacrifice for us. 

I no longer believe in a one true church.

There's no up vote button on your posts, so I will give you a thumbs up here 👍

[Vanguard]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Who said anything about it being someone's job? And yet here we are in good faith trying to figure out the distinction.

Your good faith attempt -

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

So can God be sufficiently satisfied with someone who believes they have covenanted with Him such that they are granted this "continual and increasing witness" you speak of and all the while not receive the LDS baptism? If your answer is no, I know several Christians who fervently believe otherwise. What is our answer to this?