Q&A with Bro. Kristoffer...

[KristofferUmfrey]

KristofferUmfrey, I am intrigued by your beliefs. I hope you won't be discouraged from sharing with the rest of us what it is you believe. How would you interpret Luke 9:49-50 ?

"49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." (Luke 9)

The Book of Mormon is much more generous then the believers in it (in most of the churches) allow. It teaches that those who accept Jesus, repent, and are baptized are His church. It also teaches that anything that testifies of Jesus is of God.

We each are in different stages of spiritual development and learning and the Lord is generous in allowing us to go through those stages and learn the lessons we need to learn.

This fellow knew that Jesus was the Christ, the Savior, and in His name he could help others through ministry. So he set about doing what he was lead to do by the Spirit. I think the Apostles were jealous because you remember there was a time they tried to caste out demons and they couldn't do it even though they were Jesus' closest followers.

The lesson we should take from it is, we can't judge the stage another is in, or the ministry that one feels lead by the Spirit to perform. Only God sees the beginning from the end, and all things will work together for His righteousness. If an average Christian minister leads an atheist to a belief in Jesus Christ isn't that something to rejoice over? Should we be mad because that atheist isn't really in "the true church"? Should we deny him that joy because he is still in his own stage of spiritual development and not where we see as ideal?

I hope these thoughts have been somewhat profitable.

[KristofferUmfrey]

For those who actually wish to participate in a polite discussion, here is an article about the Holy Ghost-Heavenly Mother connection to ponder...

Lion of God - David Bruce Clark

[KristofferUmfrey]

For those not familiar with the Lectures on Faith, these are the passages I draw my beliefs from...

[Lec 5:2a] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible;

[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.

[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.

[Lec 5:2d] The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness of man - or rather, man was formed after his likeness and in his image.

[chriscb]

For those not familiar with the Lectures on Faith, these are the passages I draw my beliefs from...

Here's a link for anyone interested in reading the entire Lectures on Faith. Lectures on Faith Contents Edited December 16, 2008 by chriscb

[chriscb]

For those not familiar with the Lectures on Faith, these are the passages I draw my beliefs from...

When it comes to the Godhead, do you believe in Monotheism, Modelism, Binitarianism, Tritheism, Trinitarianism, Henotheism, or Polytheism?

The "Lectures on Faith." These seven "lectures on theology" were approved for inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants by a Conference vote of the LDS Church on August 17, 1835. They appeared in all English editions of the D&C until their unexplained removal in 1921 without a General Conference vote. Lecture Five explicitly teaches that there are two persons in the Godhead:

There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things — by whom all things were created and made . . . They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing all perfection and fullness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage of tabernacle, made and fashioned like unto man.

A question and answer section in Lecture Five confirms its binitarian view of the God:

Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?

A. Two: the Father and the Son.

According to the Lectures on Faith, the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit (the two terms were not distinguished at this stage), is not a person, but is the shared "mind" of the Father and Son.

Lectures on Faith Section 5

[AnthonyB]

chriscb,

[Lec 5:2j] And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father - possessing the same mind with the Father;

[Lec 5:2k] which Mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son;

[Lec 5:2L] and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things; by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made:

[Lec 5:2m] and these three constitute the Godhead and are one: the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness;

[Lec 5:2n] filling all in all -the Son being filled with the fullness of the Mind, glory, and power; or in other words the Spirit, glory, and power of the Father - possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom;

[Lec 5:2o] sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father - a Mediator for man - being filled with the fullness of the Mind of the Father, or in other words, the Spirit of the Father;

[Lec 5:2p] which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments;

[Lec 5:2q] and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ;

[Lec 5:2r] possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all;

[Lec 5:2s] being filled with the fullness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one.

Although the language seems strange to me and is clearly LDS in tone, it all seems much more a type of trinitarianism than binatarianism. The spirit bears record and the three are one (not just one in purpose but in words much closure to traditional Christians thinking.)

As for the personages, it comes back to the question I asked on another thread. Does person and personages mean the same. (Outside Mormons people very rarely use personage any more) Personages (as I've seen LDS use it) seems to convey embodiement in a way persons (especailly by non-LDS) do not. I realize that the Holy Spirit is said to be a personage of spirit but the way personage in the first vision is used by LDs always makes me think that personage by itself conveys embodiement to LDS. However for an entity to "bear record" it must have a seperate something to it and this would best be described as "person" (ie an entity capable of separate observation and expression which IMHO are both required by the concept of "bearing record) Yet alone the repeated number of three instead of two, if it was merely a shared mind why give the number of three continually.

Edited December 16, 2008 by AnthonyB

[Wingnut]

Kris, I really hope you read this post. We both know that we haven't gotten along much at all so far on this board, but I have a little bit of constructive input I'd like to offer, and I do not intend it offensively.

(1) You started this thread. You opened up the option of asking questions about your religion. You invited us to ask you questions. When people have asked questions and have either not gotten answers or have gotten very indirect answers, they become frustrated. You are taking this as attacking, when it's not. It makes you very defensive, and makes you look like you have something to hide, which I'm guessing you don't (since, again, you started this thread).

(2) I understand your point of view of the "You are entitled to your opinion" thing. I get that you're saying it to come across as non-offensive. Do you want to know how it does come across? Condescending. Dismissive. Superior.

(3) I think a lot of people here are confused about you. I said this on another thread. You are a bit of an enigma, as you quote the Book of Mormon and LDS publications regularly, yet you are not LDS. You have many things in common with the LDS, but you also have your own doctrines...whether you have made them up yourself or whether you have been inspired with them, only you know. Because of this seeming dichotomy, many feel compelled to ask you questions to learn more. Again, you offered this. Please see #1 for more info.

(4) I don't think anyone (certainly not everyone) is trying to be offensive toward you, yet you seem very defensive. Relax a little, and we should perhaps ALL take a deep breath.

(5) This one is to everyone else. Kris has started his own church. It is fledgling. As he said, he doesn't have ready-made answers available. Even Joseph Smith (not that I am comparing Joseph and Kris as equals in any way) didn't compile the Articles of Faith until 1942. Don't overwhelm him with so many questions at once. Give the kid a break.

[chriscb]

chriscb,

[Lec 5:2j] And he being the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a fullness of the glory of the Father - possessing the same mind with the Father;

[Lec 5:2k] which Mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son;

[Lec 5:2L] and these three are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things; by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made:

[Lec 5:2m] and these three constitute the Godhead and are one: the Father and the Son possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power, and fullness;

[Lec 5:2n] filling all in all -the Son being filled with the fullness of the Mind, glory, and power; or in other words the Spirit, glory, and power of the Father - possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom;

[Lec 5:2o] sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of the Father - a Mediator for man - being filled with the fullness of the Mind of the Father, or in other words, the Spirit of the Father;

[Lec 5:2p] which Spirit is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments;

[Lec 5:2q] and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace, and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ;

[Lec 5:2r] possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness, even the express image of him who fills all in all;

[Lec 5:2s] being filled with the fullness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one.

Although the language seems strange to me and is clearly LDS in tone, it all seems much more a type of trinitarianism than binatarianism. The spirit bears record and the three are one (not just one in purpose but in words much closure to traditional Christians thinking.)

As for the personages, it comes back to the question I asked on another thread. Does person and personages mean the same. (Outside Mormons people very rarely use personage any more) Personages (as I've seen LDS use it) seems to convey embodiement in a way persons (especailly by non-LDS) do not. I realize that the Holy Spirit is said to be a personage of spirit but the way personage in the first vision is used by LDs always makes me think that personage by itself conveys embodiement to LDS. However for an entity to "bear record" it must have a seperate something to it and this would best be described as "person" (ie an entity capable of separate observation and expression which IMHO are both required by the concept of "bearing record) Yet alone the repeated number of three instead of two, if it was merely a shared mind why give the number of three continually.

Yes, I saw that. However, how do you interpret [Lec 5:2a - 5:2c]?

"[Lec 5:2a] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible;

[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.

[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.

So, from the above quote, does that mean the early LDS church did not believe the Holy Ghost was a "personage"?

[Connie]

Yes, I saw that. However, how do you interpret [Lec 5:2a - 5:2c]?

"[Lec 5:2a] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible;

[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.

[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.

So, from the above quote, does that mean the early LDS church did not believe the Holy Ghost was a "personage"?

I, personally, think it means that we don't believe the Holy Ghost had a hand in the creation of the world. The creation was carried out by Christ under the direction of the Father. They were the two who created everything and thereby have supreme power over everything. The Holy Ghost does not share in that supreme power but instead focuses on the power to "bear record" of the Father and Son to the souls of men.

[KristofferUmfrey]

Yes, I saw that. However, how do you interpret [Lec 5:2a - 5:2c]?

"[Lec 5:2a] There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing, and supreme power over all things - by whom all things were created and made that are created and made, whether visible or invisible;

[Lec 5:2b] whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth, or throughout the immensity of space.

[Lec 5:2c] They are the Father and the Son: The Father being a personage of spirit, glory, and power, possessing all perfection and fullness.

So, from the above quote, does that mean the early LDS church did not believe the Holy Ghost was a "personage"?

Because I believe that the Holy Ghost is Heavenly Mother I don't believe she has governing power as the Father and the Son do by virtue of their priesthood. The role of the Holy Ghost is to gently teach and guide God's children to truth, which is very akin to the role a mother plays within the family structure.

So I believe these verses exclude the Holy Ghost, for the reason that she doesn't hold governing power, not because she is not a personage.

Many LDS say we don't know the name of Heavenly Mother because of how much the Father honors her and how offended He would be at Her name being blasphemed. Isn't it interesting that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost?

[chriscb]

I, personally, think it means that we don't believe the Holy Ghost had a hand in the creation of the world. The creation was carried out by Christ under the direction of the Father. They were the two who created everything and thereby have supreme power over everything. The Holy Ghost does not share in that supreme power but instead focuses on the power to "bear record" of the Father and Son to the souls of men.

This is one of the things that puzzles me. "The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2

I don't know that I would be so quick to exclude the Holy Spirit from the Creation of this planet (or for that matter any of God's Creations).

[chriscb]

Because I believe that the Holy Ghost is Heavenly Mother I don't believe she has governing power as the Father and the Son do by virtue of their priesthood. The role of the Holy Ghost is to gently teach and guide God's children to truth, which is very akin to the role a mother plays within the family structure.

So I believe these verses exclude the Holy Ghost, for the reason that she doesn't hold governing power, not because she is not a personage.

Many LDS say we don't know the name of Heavenly Mother because of how much the Father honors her and how offended He would be at Her name being blasphemed. Isn't it interesting that the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost?

That is an interesting viewpoint. However, what is blasphemy? Would it be "blasphemy" for me to see Jesus perform a miraculous act by the power of the Holy Spirit and then attribute that powerful act to Satan? I'd say so. And I think the context of Luke 12:10 bears this out.

[KristofferUmfrey]

That is an interesting viewpoint. However, what is blasphemy? Would it be "blasphemy" for me to see Jesus perform a miraculous act by the power of the Holy Spirit and then attribute that powerful act to Satan? I'd say so. And I think the context of Luke 12:10 bears this out.

I know I will be paraphrasing so bear with me...

The scriptures say that speaking against the Father and the Son can be forgiven. I believe the circumstance you describe would be denying the Son and can be forgiven. To me the denial of the Holy Ghost is to have her teach you something, so that you know the principle is true and then turn and fight against her teachings. If your earthly mother slaved to teach you and nurture in the right ways and as an adult you turned on her and spoke evil against her to try to turn your siblings and family against her, how would your father react if he was a righteous man? The OT ordered such adult children to be stoned, such was the seriousness of the offense.

[chriscb]

I know I will be paraphrasing so bear with me...

The scriptures say that speaking against the Father and the Son can be forgiven. I believe the circumstance you describe would be denying the Son and can be forgiven. To me the denial of the Holy Ghost is to have her teach you something, so that you know the principle is true and then turn and fight against her teachings. If your earthly mother slaved to teach you and nurture in the right ways and as an adult you turned on her and spoke evil against her to try to turn your siblings and family against her, how would your father react if he was a righteous man? The OT ordered such adult children to be stoned, such was the seriousness of the offense.

I really don't know the Torah well enough to pinpoint where this is found. Perhaps you could show me the OT verses which speak of this. But that's besides the point. We were previously discussing this topic in the context of the Lectures on Faith. If you get some of your beliefs from the Lectures, why not be consistent and believe the entire volume? If the Lectures say that the Godhead is comprised of only two personages, then wouldn't this seem to exclude a heavenly mother (at least from the Godhead)?

Thoughts?

[rameumptom]

A question and answer section in Lecture Five confirms its binitarian view of the God:

Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?

A. Two: the Father and the Son.

According to the Lectures on Faith, the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit (the two terms were not distinguished at this stage), is not a person, but is the shared "mind" of the Father and Son.

Lectures on Faith Section 5

And this is why we believe that Joseph did not receive all things in one shot, but line upon line. His understanding of Zion was the same. He first saw it as a small community of saints. Then it became a future city in Missouri. Then it became Zion and her stakes. Then he envisioned it meaning all of North and South America.

So it is with his understanding of the Godhead. It developed until we have greater understanding in D&C 130, for example. And it is due to the greater knowledge that the Lectures on Faith were deemed inaccurate by Brigham Young and removed.

[KristofferUmfrey]

I really don't know the Torah well enough to pinpoint where this is found. Perhaps you could show me the OT verses which speak of this. But that's besides the point. We were previously discussing this topic in the context of the Lectures on Faith. If you get some of your beliefs from the Lectures, why not be consistent and believe the entire volume? If the Lectures say that the Godhead is comprised of only two personages, then wouldn't this seem to exclude a heavenly mother (at least from the Godhead)?

Thoughts?

Leviticus 20 : 9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

I believe I am consistent, I believe the Father and the Son are the Godhead, the governing priesthood over all things in creation. Just like a woman cannot be in the governing councils of the church, but can be the Relief Society or Primary President, doesn't mean she is not a person, she just has different responsibilities.

I guess you could call the Holy Ghost the Primary President over all creation.

[chriscb]

I believe I am consistent, I believe the Father and the Son are the Godhead, the governing priesthood over all things in creation. Just like a woman cannot be in the governing councils of the church, but can be the Relief Society or Primary President, doesn't mean she is not a person, she just has different responsibilities.

I guess you could call the Holy Ghost the Primary President over all creation.

Well, you make a very good point, one that I cannot argue against. I don't necessarily agree, but I can certainly see how you can view it that way. But why do you think they called the Holy Ghost the "mind" that is shared between the Father and the Son?

[chriscb]

KristofferUmfrey, moving from the Lectures to the Bible, regarding this subject, I was wondering what you thought of the following passages.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." John 14:26

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Don't these two passages seem to say that the Holy Ghost is not a female (since John calls the HG "He" and that He [the HG] is God?

Edited December 16, 2008 by chriscb

[KristofferUmfrey]

Well, you make a very good point, one that I cannot argue against. I don't necessarily agree, but I can certainly see how you can view it that way. But why do you think they called the Holy Ghost the "mind" that is shared between the Father and the Son?

Honestly, I don't know. It is one of the mysteries I don't claim to to know. Someday perhaps.

[KristofferUmfrey]

KristofferUmfrey, moving from the Lectures to the Bible, regarding this subject, I was wondering what you thought of the following passages.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you."

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

Don't these two passages seem to say that the Holy Ghost is not a female (since John calls the HG "He" and that He [the HG] is God?

Honestly, I don't claim to be an expert in ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, so I can't pretend to give the answer on that. I believe the article I posted by David Clark addresses some of those issues.

[chriscb]

Honestly, I don't claim to be an expert in ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic, so I can't pretend to give the answer on that. I believe the article I posted by David Clark addresses some of those issues.

I'll go back and read the article. But, in your opinion and according to your beliefs, would it be appropriate to call the Holy Ghost "God" (as is recorded in Acts)?

[rameumptom]

And would it be proper to call the Holy Ghost a "he" and a "man" as described also?

Anciently, they did not see the wife of God as Holy Ghost. She was Asherah, wisdom, fertility. But she was never described as the Spirit or Holy Ghost.

And I'd like to know, once again, when did Joseph Smith stray so as to make his revelations wrong? What year is the dividing mark that you accept? And why?

Do you accept D&C 1?