Holy Ghost In The Form Of A Dove

[musashi]

Everyone knows that at the baptism of Jesus Christ by John the Baptist, the voice of the Father was heard from heaven and the Holy Ghost descended in the form of a dove. I have studied the topic before but remain a little bit confused.

In regards to the presence of the Holy Ghost, was he there ..inside the dove? Or was he there, and at the same time as the dove? Or was his descent similar in the way that a dove would descend?... I'm a little confused. I think I remember Bruce R McConkie clarifying the event, but maybe I'm stupid. I don't get it yet.

[Jason]

I would bet that the whole dove story was an interpolation.

Here's a bit of info on doves:

The dove, accepted by Christianity as the emblem of the Holy Ghost, is an extremely ancient and highly revered pagan yonic emblem. In many of the ancient Mysteries it represented the third person of the Creative Triad, or the Fabricator of the world. As the lower worlds were brought into existence through a generative process, so the dove has been associated with those deities identified with the procreative functions. On account of its gentleness and devotion to its young, the dove was looked upon as the embodiment of the maternal instinct. Mythologically the dove is universally associated with, and sacred to the Great Mother goddesses and Queens of Heaven as femininity and maternity. It is sacred to Astarte, Cybele, Isis,Venus, Juno, Mylitta, and Aphrodite. The dove is also an emblem of wisdom, for it represents the power and order by which the lower worlds are maintained. It has long been accepted as a messenger of the divine will, and signifies the activity of God. They were sacrificial birds and connected with funerary cults. The name dove has been given to oracles and to prophets. "The true name of the dove was Ionah or Ityn"; it was a very sacred emblem, and at one time almost universally received; it was adopted by the Hebrews, who domesticated the turtle dove and pigeon and they were the only sacrificial birds according to the law of Moses (Lev. v, 7) and were the poor man’s sacrifice. The mystic Dove was regarded as a symbol from the days of Noah by all those who were of the Church of God. The prophet sent to Ninevah as God's messenger was called Jonah or the Dove; our Lord's forerunner, John the Baptist, was called in Greek by the name of bannes; and so was the Apostle of Love, the author of the fourth Gospel and of the Apocalypse, named bannes". (Bryant's Analysis of Ancient Mythology).

Source

[Sugarbay]

Here we go! I am glad it didn't say myna bird.

B)

[musashi]

Ok so was there a dove there? That's what I'm asking.

[Jason]

No, there probably was no dove. It was inserted later to appeal to pagan converts.

[musashi]

So what do you think?

The voice of the Father was heard.

The Son was getting baptised.

Was the Holy Ghost there? Or was it just the other two?

[Sugarbay]

It very well may mean literally. Or it could mean that the Holy Ghost "landed" there like a dove does. You have seen birds how they land and settle. Perhaps that is it. Pray about it.

B)

[Jason]

So what do you think?

The voice of the Father was heard.

The Son was getting baptised.

Was the Holy Ghost there? Or was it just the other two?

Possible opinion? I think Jesus was baptised by immersion by John. Probably no audible voice. Dove was an attempt to win over pagan converts who were accustomed to worshipping a goddess, and whereas the Dove is a symbol of the femine goddesses of the Roman Empire, it worked well. This also helps us understand the oft debated notion that the Holy Ghost is actually a female deity (aka Holy Mother).

I've got a book coming from Amazon that may shed some light. I'll let you know.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

So what do you think?

The voice of the Father was heard.

The Son was getting baptised.

Was the Holy Ghost there? Or was it just the other two?

Possible opinion? I think Jesus was baptised by immersion by John. Probably no audible voice. Dove was an attempt to win over pagan converts who were accustomed to worshipping a goddess, and whereas the Dove is a symbol of the femine goddesses of the Roman Empire, it worked well. This also helps us understand the oft debated notion that the Holy Ghost is actually a female deity (aka Holy Mother).

I've got a book coming from Amazon that may shed some light. I'll let you know.

Matthew 3:16: ...the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.

Two notes: 1. The passage says the Spirit descended like a dove, so there was likely no actual dove. 2. Matthew was written primarily to a Jewish audience, and any hint of pandering to pagans would have backfired. 3. In the parallel passage, Mark 1:10, the phrase is also "like a dove." Mark was geared towards the Greek, but also only pictures a dove-likelanding.

Conclusion: The Holy Ghost was there, but probably landed in the fashion of a dove, rather than in appearance as one.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

So what do you think?

The voice of the Father was heard.

The Son was getting baptised.

Was the Holy Ghost there? Or was it just the other two?

Possible opinion? I think Jesus was baptised by immersion by John. Probably no audible voice. Dove was an attempt to win over pagan converts who were accustomed to worshipping a goddess, and whereas the Dove is a symbol of the femine goddesses of the Roman Empire, it worked well. This also helps us understand the oft debated notion that the Holy Ghost is actually a female deity (aka Holy Mother).

I've got a book coming from Amazon that may shed some light. I'll let you know.

Matthew 3:16: ...the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.

Two notes: 1. The passage says the Spirit descended like a dove, so there was likely no actual dove. 2. Matthew was written primarily to a Jewish audience, and any hint of pandering to pagans would have backfired. 3. In the parallel passage, Mark 1:10, the phrase is also "like a dove." Mark was geared towards the Greek, but also only pictures a dove-likelanding.

Conclusion: The Holy Ghost was there, but probably landed in the fashion of a dove, rather than in appearance as one.

Let's ignore tranlsations for a minute and consider why they even bothered to compare it's descent to a DOVE. Why not some other bird? Why even a bird? Why not the WIND like at Pentecost? I believe the answer is simple, but I'd like to hear other pov's.

[musashi]

I'm aware that the new testament accounts talk about his descent being like that of a dove's. The account in 1 Nephi 11:27 says that the Holy Ghost came down out of heaven and abide upon him in the FORM of a dove. That's why I posted this question. I'm confused. Was he in the dove? Or was his descent only dove-like? The BOM account makes it sound like there was a dove there.

[Jason]

I'm aware that the new testament accounts talk about his descent being like that of a dove's. The account in 1 Nephi 11:27 says that the Holy Ghost came down out of heaven and abide upon him in the FORM of a dove. That's why I posted this question. I'm confused. Was he in the dove? Or was his descent only dove-like? The BOM account makes it sound like there was a dove there.

Speaking strictly from an non-mormon, non-christian point of view, that little bit of information actually makes the Book of Mormon look more like the work of a nineteenth century writer borowing from the Bible, than the inspired contemporary writing it claims to be.

[musashi]

Well if they contradicted then you might be right. But I'm sure I'm not the first person to ask about this kind of stuff amongst LDS people. You see Jason, it doesn't make complete sense to me. That's why I wanted to post the question on the LDS site. To see if I couldn't get some clarification on the mormon doctrine.

[Jason]

Well if they contradicted then you might be right.

It's not a matter of contradiction. It's a matter of original intent. If Im correct and the whole notion of a "dove" was inserted to allow for pagan conversions in the Roman Empire, then it would make the Book of Mormon account a fradulant copy of the New Testament gospel accounts. Thus exposing it as a work of a nineteenth century mind and not the account of the Nephite people as it claims.

[Jason]

That some Ante-Nicene Christians considered the Holy Ghost a female deity is amply explained in the following excerpt from The Gospel of Philip:

"Some said, 'Mary conceived by the holy spirit.' They are in error. They do not know what they are saying. When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?"

I quote from this source not in an attempt to prove it one way or the other, but to open up for dialogue the idea that the DOVE is a feminine symbol that was understood as such by both Pagans and Christians.

The DOVE is also a symbol of the Air or Wind. As some translators are fond of making out that the "spirit of god moved upon the waters" in creation instead of the "wind" moving upon the waters, we see quickly how one can place a Female Deity at Creation as opposed to the oft cited Trinitarian notion of Father and Son as co-creators. If mankind is in the likeness of God, then we can easily suppose that the Spirit that moved upon the waters was actually the ancient Female Hebrew Deity Asherah, the consort of El/ohim (and later of Yahweh).

Hope that makes some sense. I'll add more later.

[musashi]

I talked to my father about it and he showed me something that said that there was no dove there at all. He said that the Holy Ghost was is bodily shape, meaning that it was the figure of a man, and that his decent was like that of a dove's. The sign of the dove was instituted before the foundations of the world to represent the Holy Ghost. It's something of a calling card. The devil cannot appear in the sign of the dove. What do you think?

[musashi]

We can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost and have him to be our guide. But he never enters into our body does he? I can't think of any examples when he has entered into someone's body. But then again D&C 131:22 says that he needs to be a personage of Spirit so that he can dwell within us.

[Jason]

I talked to my father about it and he showed me something that said that there was no dove there at all. He said that the Holy Ghost was is bodily shape, meaning that it was the figure of a man, and that his decent was like that of a dove's. The sign of the dove was instituted before the foundations of the world to represent the Holy Ghost. It's something of a calling card. The devil cannot appear in the sign of the dove. What do you think?

I've heard this before from a Mormon apologist. Who said this?

We can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost and have him to be our guide. But he never enters into our body does he? I can't think of any examples when he has entered into someone's body. But then again D&C 131:22 says that he needs to be a personage of Spirit so that he can dwell within us.

Supposedly the burning bosom is the Holy Ghost present inside your body (according to LDS theology).

[Sugarbay]

We can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost and have him to be our guide. But he never enters into our body does he? I can't think of any examples when he has entered into someone's body. But then again D&C 131:22 says that he needs to be a personage of Spirit so that he can dwell within us.

Think about it. How then does the Spirit dwell in all of us if he is a personage. How is that possible? I submit that it very well may be that it is organized just like it is here. Perhaps he directs righteous spirits to dwell within us at his direction according to our making and keeping of covenants. He is a god after all. I don't see how he would operate any different from the Father and Jesus Christ. That is one "theory" There are many I am sure, and the real one will not be known until it is time for us to know and accept. I imagine there is a lot about what goes on behind the scenes that would probably freak us out if we knew before we were prepared. That is why the gospel is so simple. Do these simple things andyou will get through this, the Savior tells us.

Of course this maybe percieved to be a dogmatic approach but it truly is my own actual thought and not rhetoric. IMHO

[Jason]

Some more info on the DOVE:

In Babylon, the title of the goddess-mother as the Dwelling-place of God was Sacca, or in the emphatic form, Sacta, that is 'The Tabernacle.' Hence, at this day, the great goddesses in India, as wielding all the power of the god whom they represent, are called 'Sacti,' or the 'Tabernacle.' Now in her, as the Tabernacle or Temple of God, not only all power, but all grace and goodness were believed to dwell. Every quality of gentleness and mercy was regarded as centered in her; and when death had closed her career, while she was fabled to have been deified and changed into a pigeon, to express the celestial benignity of her nature, she was called by the name of 'D'Iune,' or 'The Dove,' or without the article, 'Juno,' - the name of the Roman 'queen of heaven,' which has the very same meaning; and under the form of a dove as well as her own, she was worshipped by the Babylonians. The dove, the chosen symbol of this deified queen, is commonly represented with an olive branch in her mouth, as she herself in her human form also is seen bearing the olive branch in her hand; and from this form of representing her, it is highly probable that she has derived the name by which she is commonly known, for 'Z'emir-amit' means 'The branch-bearer.' When the goddess was thus represented as the Dove with the olive branch, there can be no doubt that the symbol had partly reference to the story of the flood; but there was much more in the symbol than a mere memorial of that great event. 'A branch,' as has been already proved, was the symbol of the deifed son, and when the deifed mother was represented as a Dove, what could the meaning of this representation be but just to identify her with the Spirit of all grace, that brooded, dove-like, over the deep at the creation; for in the sculptures at Nineveh, as we have seen, the wings and tail of the dove represented the third member of the idolatrous Assyrian trinity. In confirmation of this view, it must be stated that the Assyrian 'Juno,' or 'The Virgin Venus,' as she was called, was identified with the air. Thus Julius Firmicus says: -'The Assyrians and part of the Africans wish the air to have the supremacy of the elements, for they have consecrated this same [element] under the name of Juno, or the Virgin Venus.' Why was air thus identified with Juno, whos symbol ws that of the third person of the Assyrian trinity? Why, but because in Chaldee the same word which signifies the air signifies also the 'Holy Ghost.' The knowledge of this entirely accounts for the statement of Proclus, that 'Juno imports the generation of soul.' Whence could the sould - the spirit of man - be supposed to have its origin, but ffom the Spirit of God. . . . Thus , then, the deified queen, when in all respects regarded as a veritable woman, was at the same time adored as the incarnation of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of peace and love. (Hislop, The Two Babylons. pp.78-80)

Bear in mind that Rev. Hislop was a Protestant minister who wrote this entire text as a refutation of the Roman Catholic Church. So while his interpretations are not always to be taken at face value, his research is rather fascinating and worthwhile.

[Jason]

<div class='quotemain'>

We can feel the influence of the Holy Ghost and have him to be our guide. But he never enters into our body does he? I can't think of any examples when he has entered into someone's body. But then again D&C 131:22 says that he needs to be a personage of Spirit so that he can dwell within us.

Think about it. How then does the Spirit dwell in all of us if he is a personage. How is that possible?

Heretic.

I submit that it very well may be that it is organized just like it is here. Perhaps he directs righteous spirits to dwell within us at his direction according to our making and keeping of covenants. He is a god after all. I don't see how he would operate any different from the Father and Jesus Christ. That is one "theory".

This seems more like the Roman Catholic teaching of the Guardian Angel. Is that an accurate interpretation of what you're saying?

Of course this maybe percieved to be a dogmatic approach but it truly is my own actual thought and not rhetoric. IMHO

Dogmatist!