Do you believe in ghosts?

[Moksha]

Sheol/hades is a temporary place, where souls are kept as they await the final resurrection and judgment. Rev 20:11-15 gives a distinction between the two. Hell (the lake of fire) is the permanent and final place of judgment for the lost. Hades is a temporary place.

So were does the Elysian Fields fit in?

[Melissa569]

I'm starting to think that the reason we all debate religion and afterlife, is because there are things about both atheism and afterlife that both terrify and comfort us. And within both subjects, there are little sub categories made up of even more things that terrify and comfort us. So we are all trying to adhere to the parts we like, and reject the parts we don't.

For each person, the parts we like or don't like are different. But soon enough, we will all know the truth, and there is a 50/50 chance each of us could be right or wrong.

Boy, who needs horror films when you have THAT huge and scary notion? lol

[pam]

I can't think of a thing in the LDS religion that terrifies me.

Okay, well perhaps giving a talk in Sacrament meeting. But even that is not that bad.

[Dravin]

I can't think of a thing in the LDS religion that terrifies me.

Okay, well perhaps giving a talk in Sacrament meeting. But even that is not that bad.

Not even Jello Salad with vegetables in it? I know the thought of that keeps me up at night.

[Melissa569]

Not even Jello Salad with vegetables in it? I know the thought of that keeps me up at night.

......Ewe, lol. Reminds me of the "granola cola" Sprite ad joke:

Sprite - Granola Cola (1997) | Commercial

Edited September 21, 2010 by Melissa569

[JohnnyRudick]

I, for one, agree that some portions of A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, including Elder Richards' use of the "familiar spirit" terminology, are somewhat problematic and perhaps unwarranted in light of the context in which the Bible was written.

But that's neither here nor there, Gina; because it looks to me like Graig used strictly Biblical sources to arrive at the same position that Jayanna was advocating: that the temporary realm of the dead, wherever it is, is *not* the same as what we call "heaven". (I acknowledge that we can quibble over whether the Father is present in that realm, based on whether one embraces the Trinity or not--as I'm sure you are aware; we Mormons reject the idea of a Trinity and thus would say that the Father is not in this realm that Graig calls "sheol/hades"; I surmise that someone who accepts that Jesus and the Father are one and the same Being would take the opposite view.)

But as to your earliest post to this thread: As a Mormon, I feel it neither necessary nor desirable to limit my doctrinal positions to what may be found within the Bible.

Even using the ideas that Gina and company follow, Jesus is not in Hell.

Nor was He in Hell at His crucifixion.

He went to the Spirit Prison/Abraham's bosom and preached to the Spirits trapped there.

Jesus Moved Abraham's Bosom from its pre-crucifixion location with Him when He broke down those gates at His resurrection, even resurrecting many at that time (I believe) from Abraham's Bosom.

We had this conversation sometime last year didn't we?

[rameumptom]

Hi jayanna,

I am familiar with LeGrand Richards. One of the interesting things he wrote was this, referring to the BoM: "Truly, it has a familiar spirit.."

Yet ”familiar” as in "familiar spirit", when used in Scripture never means something warm and cozy. Look at Isaiah. 8: 19 and 2 Ne. 18: 19:

:)

Actually, there IS one event wherein the term "familiar spirit" does have a good connotation. I'll show you where your declaration "never" is wrong. In Isaiah 29 we read concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (Ariel), and another place that should be as Ariel. Destruction occurs for both Jerusalem, and the Nephite nation (as we can read their interpretation of Isaiah 29 in 2 Nephi 26).

The words of the dead will arise and sound like that of a familiar spirit (not in a bad connotation) and those words would go forth as a blessing unto the people. From this chapter in Isaiah, LeGrand Richards used the term "Marvelous Work and a Wonder" as a title for his own book. However, the Marvelous Work and a Wonder is a sealed book that the learned cannot read, which would come forth in a day when the blind could see and the deaf hear the words of the book. Sounds like our day.

Nephi tells us:

14 But behold, I prophesy unto you concerning the last days; concerning the days when the Lord God shall bring these things forth unto the children of men. 15 After my seed and the seed of my brethren shall have dwindled in unbelief, and shall have been smitten by the Gentiles; yea, after the Lord God shall have camped against them round about, and shall have laid siege against them with a mount, and raised forts against them; and after they shall have been brought down low in the dust, even that they are not, yet the words of the righteous shall be written, and the prayers of the faithful shall be heard, and all those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not be forgotten.

16 For those who shall be destroyed shall speak unto them out of the ground, and their speech shall be low out of the dust, and their voice shall be as one that hath a familiar spirit; for the Lord God will give unto him power, that he may whisper concerning them, even as it were out of the ground; and their speech shall whisper out of the dust.

17 For thus saith the Lord God: They shall write the things which shall be done among them, and they shall be written and sealed up in a book, and those who have dwindled in unbelief shall not have them, for they seek to destroy the things of God.

This goes along well as a very possible interpretation of Isaiah:

1 Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices. 2 Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel.

3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust....

11 And the vision of all is become unto you as the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it is sealed: 12 And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned.

13 ¶ Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

14 Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid.

....

18 ¶ And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness. 19 The meek also shall increase their joy in the Lord, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.

....

23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel. 24 They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine.

[rameumptom]

The story of Lazarus and the rich man showed that there was a gulf that could not be bridged in Gehenna. Yet, ancient scripture suggests and modern scripture clearly shows that Christ bridged that gulf. Peter notes that Christ preached the gospel to the dead, even those who lived in the times of the Flood. Christ was able to promise the thief he would be with him in Paradise, knowing he would break down the walls of death.

D&C 128 clearly describes what occurs in the Spirit World, and it is supported by the ancient tome Gospel of Nicodemus, wherein all spirits are trapped by death and hell until Christ dies and breaks down the walls of their prison.

[rameumptom]

Can you provide a reference for this? And how do you know it was meant in the same way as what is mentioned in the scriptures?

I could say, "As I've traveled to numerous wards around the country, there is a familiar spirit." That doesn't mean I'm talking about wizards and witchcraft.

Exactly, this is a fallacy of argument, one which does not follow from the evidence. Especially since I just showed that her evidence was wrong, or at least incomplete.

[FunkyTown]

I can't think of a thing in the LDS religion that terrifies me.

Okay, well perhaps giving a talk in Sacrament meeting. But even that is not that bad.

The bishop or stake secretary walking up and putting his hand on your shoulder. You know it's a calling.

[EandLDOW]

The scriptures clearly tell us that a third of Heavenly Father's children followed Lucifer and rebelled against the Plan and were cast out of Heaven into the Earth. Sounds to me like there are lots of ghosts around here.

[JohnnyRudick]

The scriptures clearly tell us that a third of Heavenly Father's children followed Lucifer and rebelled against the Plan and were cast out of Heaven into the Earth. Sounds to me like there are lots of ghosts around here.

No, they have no connection to Earthly flesh, other then they are jealous of us and would try to tempt us if they could to defile our flesh in every way possible.

I believe they are spirits never to have bodies.

[Just_A_Guy]

The bishop or stake secretary walking up and putting his hand on your shoulder. You know it's a calling.

Yes, but if he's doing the hand-on-your-shoulder thing then it's an easy calling. It's when he does the handshake/man-hug combo that you need to start getting worried.

[Just_A_Guy]

Even using the ideas that Gina and company follow, Jesus is not in Hell.

Nor was He in Hell at His crucifixion.

He went to the Spirit Prison/Abraham's bosom and preached to the Spirits trapped there.

Jesus Moved Abraham's Bosom from its pre-crucifixion location with Him when He broke down those gates at His resurrection, even resurrecting many at that time (I believe) from Abraham's Bosom.

We had this conversation sometime last year didn't we?

I agree with what you're saying here. It just seems to me that--while the terminology differs--Graig was saying more or less the same thing: that Jesus went to the temporary spirit world, not the eternal "hell".

No, they have no connection to Earthly flesh, other then they are jealous of us and would try to tempt us if they could to defile our flesh in every way possible.

I believe they are spirits never to have bodies.

Are you saying these disembodied spirits are powerless to interact with mortals? If so, I don't see why we would need the keys given in D&C 129.

Maybe I've just watched Ghost too many times, but I sort of wonder whether disembodied spirits aren't capable of learning natural principles that allow them to reveal themselves to mortals--and that they may do so for their own ends (which possibly have nothing to do with a desire to either advance or attack the Gospel) whenever the priesthood does not intervene to stop them.

[JohnnyRudick]

. . .

Are you saying these disembodied spirits are powerless to interact with mortals? If so, I don't see why we would need the keys given in D&C 129.

Maybe I've just watched Ghost too many times, but I sort of wonder whether disembodied spirits aren't capable of learning natural principles that allow them to reveal themselves to mortals--and that they may do so for their own ends (which possibly have nothing to do with a desire to either advance or attack the Gospel) whenever the priesthood does not intervene to stop them.

What I am referring to here are spirits who have never

had an Earthly bodies and I think never will.

I believe these if allowed to and especially if invited, can and if can,

will influence us and at rare times interact, claiming to be who he is not.

[rameumptom]

Yes, but if he's doing the hand-on-your-shoulder thing then it's an easy calling. It's when he does the handshake/man-hug combo that you need to start getting worried.

So, when the entire stake presidency recently gathered around me, sadly shaking their heads, how worried should I have been?

BTW, I'm now a high counselor....

[MichaelCraig]

I've been in a way interested in the ghost thing since I was a kid. I've even gone as far as driving to the so called "haunted" areas in and around my south Georgia USA county which has a very long history of condeferate/union soldier hauntings. Andersonville Prison (Camp Sumter) is just north of here and holds military fallen dating from the Revolutionary War to present day KIA's and vets including close to 13,000 union prisoners that died from disease, poor sanitation, malnutrition, overcrowding, and exposure to the elements during the Civil War. You would think with that many souls and the awful way they passed that in my 50 yrs living here I would have seen at least one, but...nope! Maybe it's the "watched pot" thing but as hard as I've tried I have not to this day actually witnessed a single ghost. What I did find or finally come to realize is that Heavenly Father put us here, in this world/dimension, to live our lives. Have fun. Make some mistakes, some really bad ones in my case but through it all grow spiritually, each lesson learned drawing us closer to Him. He gives us enough to do and focus on in this spiritual realm than to worry or seek things in other places/times. I also found out one more very important fact that I think others should keep in mind and that is...you need to be real careful what you are looking for. Because, you just might find it. :0

[Graig]

I found the quote:

Let's not take this out of context.

Unfortunately what LeGrand Richards meant is not being understood here. There is a passage of Scripture that the lds church says substantiates the coming forth of the BoM. It is Isaiah 29:4. "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust."

Compare this with what LeGrands Richards wrote: “Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak ‘out of the ground’ or ‘low out of the dust’ would be by the written word, and this the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel.”

The Hebrew word pronounced ‘OV’ or ‘OB’, means a necromancer and is translated in the Bible as ‘familiar spirit. In Deut. 18:11 it is used with ‘the dead’ as the direct object. To follow after the dead is translated as ‘necromancer,’ which is communication with demons.’

"Familiar spirit" according to the Holy Bible always refers to demons, since the Bible is clear that the dead do not return as disembodied spirits roaming the earth. LeGrand Richards, as do most lds, believe that this familiar spirit is God-given and positive affirmation that the BoM is truly scripture from God. But the Holy Bible never speaks positively of “familiar spirits” and God never uses “familiar spirits” to confirm His presence or authenticate His Word. The Holy Bible tells us that “familiar spirits” are spirit persons who are familiar or intimate with humans and speak to them through a witch or a spirit medium! In every case the person who has the “familiar spirit” is condemned by God.

The point is Richards showed a complete misunderstanding of the usage of familar spirit. There are at least 15 Old Testament references to ‘familiar spirit’, and all of them deal with witchcraft.

[gina]

LeGrand Richards completely misses it as is evidenced by his misunderstanding of the phrase "familiar spirit". What spirit is he talking about? The Holy Bible never gives the slightest indication that it means anything sentimental or nostalgic, or something fondly remembered. The phrase always refers to evil spirits. Richards takes a passage from Isaiah and attempts to show that it predicts the coming of the book of mormon. He then paraphrases it in his own words. Perhaps he did slip up and mean something totally different than the biblical definition. If so, its an interesting slip.

The point is, if I want truth it would not be wise for me to go to a man and read his books. God alone is Truth and His word is where I will find it. The Holy Bible tells us ghosts are not the spirit of the dead who return while awaiting the Judgment. Rather it says the dead know nothing and therefore cannot communicate with us. If God says not to communicate with the dead, not to even attempt it, then we had better obey. DON'T DO IT! Otherwise you open the door to demonic activity and God's anger.

Joseph Smith himself admitted when one of his revelations later proved false that sometimes it can come from satan. "(I Joseph) enquired of the Lord about it, and behold, the following revelation came through the stone: Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil." He was unable to discern whether his so-called revelations had come from God, his own imagination or the devil, One should be extremely cautious.

[pam]

Joseph Smith himself admitted when one of his revelations later proved false that sometimes it can come from satan. "(I Joseph) enquired of the Lord about it, and behold, the following revelation came through the stone: Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil." He was unable to discern whether his so-called revelations had come from God, his own imagination or the devil, One should be extremely cautious.

This is not true. This account was provided by David Witmer who was not even present at the time that Joseph Smith received the original revelation. He wrote this account 57 years after it happened. He also was trying to prove that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and had no problem with falsifying information as none of the original members present were alive to dispute the account.

[rameumptom]

LeGrand Richards completely misses it as is evidenced by his misunderstanding of the phrase "familiar spirit". What spirit is he talking about? The Holy Bible never gives the slightest indication that it means anything sentimental or nostalgic, or something fondly remembered. The phrase always refers to evil spirits. Richards takes a passage from Isaiah and attempts to show that it predicts the coming of the book of mormon. He then paraphrases it in his own words. Perhaps he did slip up and mean something totally different than the biblical definition. If so, its an interesting slip.

The point is, if I want truth it would not be wise for me to go to a man and read his books. God alone is Truth and His word is where I will find it. The Holy Bible tells us ghosts are not the spirit of the dead who return while awaiting the Judgment. Rather it says the dead know nothing and therefore cannot communicate with us. If God says not to communicate with the dead, not to even attempt it, then we had better obey. DON'T DO IT! Otherwise you open the door to demonic activity and God's anger.

Joseph Smith himself admitted when one of his revelations later proved false that sometimes it can come from satan. "(I Joseph) enquired of the Lord about it, and behold, the following revelation came through the stone: Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil." He was unable to discern whether his so-called revelations had come from God, his own imagination or the devil, One should be extremely cautious.

Actually you are wrong in this thing. You are looking at it from a modern Protestant point of view. But ancient Jews, such as Isaiah, saw things differently when it came to words. For example, both Jesus and Lucifer are called "Son of the morning." It is a serpent that deceived Adam and Eve and was cursed, but it was also a bronze serpent that saved ancient Israel - a symbol of Christ to be lifted up in order to save all those who would look upon him.

As I noted before, and you apparently either didn't read it or ignored it, Isaiah 29's use of familiar spirit is used in a different context than that in other parts of the scripture. Nephi quoted this and in formal Midrash style used it to explain his understanding of the future prophecies of his people. It is this use of the term "familiar spirit" that LeGrand Richards used. And he used it properly within the context. You, OTOH, are taking it out of context, as you are not considering these other issues I am bringing to the table.

Symbols often take on more than one meaning, especially when they pass through different cultures, etc. And if you are ignorant of previous uses or forms, then it definitely would look like an evil thing Elder Richards was doing. However, when viewed in context, we see it in its proper form.

[pam]

Unfortunately what LeGrand Richards meant is not being understood here. There is a passage of Scripture that the lds church says substantiates the coming forth of the BoM. It is Isaiah 29:4. "And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust."

Compare this with what LeGrands Richards wrote: “Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak ‘out of the ground’ or ‘low out of the dust’ would be by the written word, and this the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel.”

The Hebrew word pronounced ‘OV’ or ‘OB’, means a necromancer and is translated in the Bible as ‘familiar spirit. In Deut. 18:11 it is used with ‘the dead’ as the direct object. To follow after the dead is translated as ‘necromancer,’ which is communication with demons.’

"Familiar spirit" according to the Holy Bible always refers to demons, since the Bible is clear that the dead do not return as disembodied spirits roaming the earth. LeGrand Richards, as do most lds, believe that this familiar spirit is God-given and positive affirmation that the BoM is truly scripture from God. But the Holy Bible never speaks positively of “familiar spirits” and God never uses “familiar spirits” to confirm His presence or authenticate His Word. The Holy Bible tells us that “familiar spirits” are spirit persons who are familiar or intimate with humans and speak to them through a witch or a spirit medium! In every case the person who has the “familiar spirit” is condemned by God.

The point is Richards showed a complete misunderstanding of the usage of familar spirit. There are at least 15 Old Testament references to ‘familiar spirit’, and all of them deal with witchcraft.

I disagree. Please read Rameumptom's explanation in the post above mine as that is what I believe and he explains it much more eloquently than I ever could

[pam]

Interesting how Graig and Gina's IP's are EXACTLY the same. Are we debating with the same person but with multiple identities here? Or is this a tag team effort?

Edited September 23, 2010 by pam

[rameumptom]

Either way, both of them are wrong in their view. It is so simple in religion, politics and child rearing to ignorantly be wrong. You feed them pizza and give your kids Wii, and think that you are raising them well. Guess what? It ignores all the data that shows all the other stuff required to raise a well balanced kid.

The same with religion. There are so many layers. I've spent about 30 years studying ancient Jewish/Christian thought, and I'm still a beginner. Yet, sad thing is that I know more than most people I come across. Most have no idea of the things the scriptures teach and the ancients believed, until you begin really studying it, as I show on my blog and on the Old Testament forum.

[Just_A_Guy]

The Holy Bible tells us ghosts are not the spirit of the dead who return while awaiting the Judgment.

The Bible does not come out and say one way or the other. You interpolate as much from carefully selected passages.

Rather it says the dead know nothing. . .

Be careful about being hyper-literal in interpreting Ecclesiastes. The same verse (9:5) also says that no one remembers the dead--an assertion literally disproved every day by your local newspaper's obituary column. The next verse says that the dead have no portion in anything that was done under the sun, and never will--the literal interpretation of that is that what happens when we die is not remotely linked to anything we did or didn't do during our lifetimes (so why are you bothering to try to convert us from our heresy?)

So you can either keep applying The Preacher literally and admit that my eternal fate has nothing to do with what heresies I embrace in this life (making your activity on this forum--indeed, all activities in your life--utter vanity, as The Preacher says); or you can admit that at least some of Ecclesiastes is metaphorical and that, thus, one can't use it to make absolute assertions regarding the state of consciousness after death. And while you're at it, you can explain why Bildad--who also "knew nothing", by his own profession--was still able to communicate with Job if "knowing nothing" always indicates a state of unconsciousness (Job 8:9).

and therefore cannot communicate with us.

The Bible itself contains at least two instances disproving the blanket rule you have tried to establish. The (deceased, according to the Bible's text) Moses (along with Elijah, who technically never died) was able to commune with the Lord, Peter, James, and John on the Mount of Transfiguration.

The Bible states that, for Saul, the witch of En-Dor conjured Samuel. One can argue over whether it was really Samuel or an evil spirit impersonating him, but the fact is--the Bible says the being was "Samuel"; and you can only resolve the apparent contradiction by ignoring certain parts of the Biblical text. So the question arises: which text will you ignore, and how is this selective reading process superior to the Mormon concept of "revelation" that you find so untrustworthy?

If God says not to communicate with the dead, not to even attempt it, then we had better obey. DON'T DO IT! Otherwise you open the door to demonic activity and God's anger.

I actually agree with you on this, and so does mainstream Mormon thought.

The point is, if I want truth it would not be wise for me to go to a man and read his books. God alone is Truth and His word is where I will find it. . . . .

And you fall into the common trap of equating the Bible in its current form as The Sole And Exclusive Word Of God. You might try a forum search--the topic has been discussed, in detail, repeatedly--but suffice it to say, that idea cannot be substantiated within the Bible itself.

Joseph Smith himself admitted when one of his revelations later proved false that sometimes it can come from satan. "(I Joseph) enquired of the Lord about it, and behold, the following revelation came through the stone: Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil." He was unable to discern whether his so-called revelations had come from God, his own imagination or the devil, One should be extremely cautious.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that yes, Joseph was occasionally fooled and admitted as much--whether Whitmer's testimony is accurate or not, we also have Levi Hancock's record of a conference June 4, 1831 where Joseph at first accepts some supernatural manifestations, but at Hyrum's urging inquires of the Lord and realizes that these manifestations are in fact of the devil. And this is after he's received a revelation warning him that there are false spirits in the world, and that he needs to be careful to distinguish them.

But . . . so revelation can be misread sometimes. What of it? How do you think the Bible came into existence? At some point Moses, Isaiah, and John all went through the same process Joseph Smith claimed to have gone through; and a few centuries later a group of largely anonymous scholars went through a similar process in determining which writings should be incorporated into what we now call the Bible. How can you pick apart Joseph Smith's revelatory process, while refusing to apply similar scrutiny to the revelatory process of Moses, Isaiah, John, and the early Christian fathers?

You are right that one should be "extremely cautious". You are wrong--colossally wrong--to imply that revelation is inherently an inferior process to the doctrinal-cherry-picking-masquerading-as-textualism you have thus far employed.

Edited September 23, 2010 by Just_A_Guy