The "spirits"

[serapha]

Would someone mind defining the following terms and, if possible, give an example from the bom... are any of the "Spirits" the same?

Spirit

Holy Spirit

Spirit of the Lord

Spirit of God

Spirit of truth

~serapha~

[DisRuptive1]

Aren't the first 2 and the fifth the same?

And the third a song?

And the fourth something that God is taking an interest in?

[Setheus]

Why don't you just pray to Heavenly Father about it? After all the spirit manifests the truth in ALL things.

[AFDaw]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 13 2004, 08:45 PM

Would someone mind defining the following terms and, if possible, give an example from the bom... are any of the "Spirits"  the same? 

Spirit

Holy Spirit

Spirit of the Lord

Spirit of God

Spirit of truth

~serapha~

Spirit can be a lot of things. Every body has a spirit, yet when you say THE Spirit, I believe it's referring to the Holy Spirit which is the Holy Ghost, which is also the Spirit of Truth. The Spirit of God and the Spirit of the Lord could possibly depend on the context in which their spoken. But I would also think it's safe to say that they are the Holy Ghost as well.

[Guest Starsky]

You take them in context as to what they are doing...that will tell you which one it is...

for instance...Spirit of Christ/Spirit of Truth/Second Comforter.....

Or Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost/First Comforter.....

Or you might look up D&C 84:45....

Or it might be the light of Christ which is also the conscience

Or it can be the visitation of the Spirit of Christ as Brother of Jared had.

It really depends upon the scripture. You put them in their full context and I can tell you which one it is....but to just ask for a general over all definition....not happening.

For instance...if you look in the OT you will find a place where two spirits are mentioned. Iwill have to look it up when I get home...as I am in the Library and don't have my source book.

But in this scripture you will see how they are defined and work together...

[serapha]

The question came from this statement.

Bruce R. McConkie

"To gain a sound gospel understanding, the truth seeker must determine in each scriptural passage what is meant by such titles as Spirit, Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of God, Spirit of truth." (Mormon Doctrine, p.752 SPIRIT OF THE LORD)

I thought the different "titles" must have specific meanings.

~serapha~

[Guest Ammon]

My 2% of a dollar....

Spirit = Holy Ghost, member of the Godhead, separate but one with the Father and Son

Holy Spirit = "

Spirit of the Lord = " (the Holy Ghost is one with the Lord)

Spirit of God = "

Spirit of truth = Charity

[Jenda]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 14 2004, 04:47 PM

The question came from this statement.

Bruce R. McConkie

"To gain a sound gospel understanding, the truth seeker must determine in each scriptural passage what is meant by such titles as Spirit, Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of God, Spirit of truth." (Mormon Doctrine, p.752 SPIRIT OF THE LORD)

I thought the different "titles" must have specific meanings.

~serapha~

Didn't he go on in wherever you found that quote to delineate the differences, or is this a test?

[Guest Starsky]

Ezekiel 2:2

And the spirit (the Holy Ghost)entered into me when he (The Spirit of Christ) spake unto me, and (he) (the Holy ghost) stood me upon my feet, that I heard him (The Spirit of Christ) that spake unto me.

This is an example of both the Holy Ghost and the Spirit of Christ working in tandom.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 14 2004, 04:47 PM

The question came from this statement.

Bruce R. McConkie

"To gain a sound gospel understanding, the truth seeker must determine in each scriptural passage what is meant by such titles as Spirit, Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of God, Spirit of truth." (Mormon Doctrine, p.752 SPIRIT OF THE LORD)

I thought the different "titles" must have specific meanings.

~serapha~

They do. Each use is a 'job discription'.

Just as you can be a doctor, parent, wife, friend, neighbor....and so can others operate under those same titles....

But just because you operate under the same titles doesn't make you the same entities. You are separate, individual,....yet the same.

You both can be (1) neighbor (2) friend (3) parent (4) doctor.....and operate under those titles...yet you are two different people.

So when you see one of the Godhead operate under certain titles, you may not know exactly which one is doing the job....you just know the job they are doing.

Knowing that they are all working for the same purpose, it shouldn't matter which one it is.

Take for instance your parents. They both operate under the title of 'parent'. One night you are sick and your father parent comes to your room and holds you in a chair next to your bed all night to comfort you.

The next day, your mother parent takes you to the doctor and makes sure you are made well.... They both operated under the title of 'parent' doing the job necessary to care for you. But they were two different entities....who could at any time swap the 'work' they did for you.....under the title and responsibility of 'parent'.

Do you care which did which job? Probably not....You care that they did the job.

It really isn't important that we know exactly which entity comes to our aid, answers our prayers, or enlightens our minds.

It is important that we can depend upon their being there when we need them.

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Apr 14 2004, 04:47 PM

The question came from this statement.

Bruce R. McConkie

"To gain a sound gospel understanding, the truth seeker must determine in each scriptural passage what is meant by such titles as Spirit, Holy Spirit, Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of God, Spirit of truth." (Mormon Doctrine, p.752 SPIRIT OF THE LORD)

I thought the different "titles" must have specific meanings.

~serapha~

So you know what the book Mormon Doctrine says about it.

What do you want to know here, if we disagree with what it says? If we have read it?

What's up with asking all the questions and then saying, okay, thanks? Do you have a point?

[Guest Ammon]

Besides, Serapha, as you've been repeatedly told, the book Mormon Doctrine is NOT official church doctrine. It is not approved, authorized, or published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. It is the "Book of McConkie," which is not part of our official canon or teachings. Take a big bag of salt with that book.

[Snow]

Ammon,

Meaning that you disagree with what BRM said? How so?

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Snow@Apr 14 2004, 08:23 PM

Ammon,

Meaning that you disagree with what BRM said? How so?

BRM? You mean Elder McConkie? BRM makes an odd acronym (e.g., Bowel Rumbling Movement). Elder McConkie, from what I understand, was the most frequently censured General Authority to ever hold that calling. The Church came down on him often for proffering his opinion as doctrine. Thus, in my personal view, his credibility is questionable, at best. Accordingly, I tend to shy away from his teachings and publications unless he is quoting scripture in the correct context or staying right in line with noncontroversial doctrine. Other than that, you can have him.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 14 2004, 08:30 PM

BRM? You mean Elder McConkie? BRM makes an odd acronym (e.g., Bowel Rumbling Movement). Elder McConkie, from what I understand, was the most frequently censured General Authority to ever hold that calling. The Church came down on him often for proffering his opinion as doctrine. Thus, in my personal view, his credibility is questionable, at best. . Other than that, you can have him.

Hmmm,

That is an interesting way to refer to one who was called of God as a prophet, seer and revelator and served faithfully until the day he died as as a special witness of Christ. Nice touch Ammon.

Elder McConkie, from what I understand, was the most frequently censured General Authority to ever hold that calling.

Really. Perhaps you could give us a full list of all the occasions on which he was censured. No? How about a partial list? A single time?

Accordingly, I tend to shy away from his teachings and publications unless he is quoting scripture in the correct context or staying right in line with noncontroversial doctrine

As it is, however, Elder Mckonkie is one of the most published of all the Church's apostles, all his works having been reviewed and published by the Church itself.

Thus, in my personal view, his credibility is questionable, at best.  .  Other than that, you can have him. 

While your busy questioning his credibility, the prophet and President Hinckely says this: "With measured words, firm and unequivocal, and with order and logic, he wove the patterns of his discourse..."

Oh, and BTW, during his 40 years as a general authority, he spoke scores and scores of times in General Conference, and ACCORDING TO YOU, Ammon, each time, he spoke doctrine, pure and unadulterated... right from the source.

[Snow]

And if anyone want to hear a portion of his final testimony, 13 days before he died:

http://www.coolcontent.com/McConkie/McConkie.wav

or for alternate formats and text:

http://www.coolcontent.com/McConkie/

[AFDaw]

Despite all that Snow, it still doesn't change the fact that Mormon Doctrine is not necessarily church doctine, but rather McConkie's views. Yes the majority are right on the money, but perhaps some aren't. No one should live their life or change their life to make it fit with what's written in his book.

[Snow]

AFDaw,

I am not saying that Mormon Doctrine is the equivalent of gospel doctrine. In fact I agrue (correctly) that the scriptures (and precious little else) are the source of doctrine and most everything else is an interpretation or an explanation of doctrine, but not doctrine except to the extent that it agrees with doctrine in the scripture.

Still, when Mormons want to understand a gospel word or concept, they turn first, just as often as not to Mormon Doctrine. Agree with him or not, McConkie was/is a fountain of knowledge. If the question is should I accept the word of a random poster on the internet or accept the word of a 40 year general authority who's work is published by the Church and respected by millions, guess where I fall?

[Snow]

Oh and if someone can show him wrong, let em and more power to em, but that is hardly ever the case and it isn't the case here.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Snow@Apr 14 2004, 10:38 PM

AFDaw,

I am not saying that Mormon Doctrine is the equivalent of gospel doctrine. In fact I agrue (correctly) that the scriptures (and precious little else) are the source of doctrine and most everything else is an interpretation or an explanation of doctrine, but not doctrine except to the extent that it agrees with doctrine in the scripture.

Still, when Mormons want to understand a gospel word or concept, they turn first, just as often as not to Mormon Doctrine. Agree with him or not, McConkie was/is a fountain of knowledge. If the question is should I accept the word of a random poster on the internet or accept the word of a 40 year general authority who's work is published by the Church and respected by millions, guess where I fall?

Oh Snow...you didn't know? BRM's book Mormon Doctrine was not okayed by the Prophet David O. Infact over 700 errors were found in it when they finally found out it was in the publics hands already.

But....they have made several changes....BRM may have written books, but that hardly makes him an authority....even the evangelists write lots of books...

I think the best place to get doctrine verified is through the obedience....D&C 121:45

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Starsky+Apr 15 2004, 08:00 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starsky @ Apr 15 2004, 08:00 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Apr 14 2004, 10:38 PM

AFDaw,

I am not saying that Mormon Doctrine is the equivalent of gospel doctrine. In fact I agrue (correctly) that the scriptures (and precious little else) are the source of doctrine and most everything else is an interpretation or an explanation of doctrine, but not doctrine except to the extent that it agrees with doctrine in the scripture.

Still, when Mormons want to understand a gospel word or concept, they turn first, just as often as not to Mormon Doctrine. Agree with him or not, McConkie was/is a fountain of knowledge. If the question is should I accept the word of a random poster on the internet or accept the word of a 40 year general authority who's work is published by the Church and respected by millions, guess where I fall?

Oh Snow...you didn't know? BRM's book Mormon Doctrine was not okayed by the Prophet David O. Infact over 700 errors were found in it when they finally found out it was in the publics hands already.

But....they have made several changes....BRM may have written books, but that hardly makes him an authority....even the evangelists write lots of books...

I think the best place to get doctrine verified is through the obedience....D&C 121:45

Indeed, there were, and are many errors in that book. The antimormons LOVE that thing... it is full of alleged doctrine (see the title of the book), which IS NOT doctrine. And he was censured for claiming that the Catholic Church was the great and abominable church, among other things. He publicly apologized for this statement and retracted it. Further, his censures are not public record. Some leaked out, but there is not an offfical public record, to my knowledge.

Moreover, I find it almost comical that Snow is so bent on limiting doctrine to the canon and little else, but apparently embraces with vigor a book called Mormon Doctrine--that is not Mormon doctrine at all--according to Snow's definition of doctrine. Thus, using Snow's definition, the title of the book is itself a lie, yet he apparently loves the thing. Go figure.

EDIT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has NEVER and does not currently publish Mormon Doctrine. It is published by a private enterprise. The book is not authorized by The Church in any way.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Ammon+Apr 15 2004, 10:25 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Ammon @ Apr 15 2004, 10:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Starsky@Apr 15 2004, 08:00 AM

<!--QuoteBegin--Snow@Apr 14 2004, 10:38 PM

AFDaw,

I am not saying that Mormon Doctrine is the equivalent of gospel doctrine. In fact I agrue (correctly) that the scriptures (and precious little else) are the source of doctrine and most everything else is an interpretation or an explanation of doctrine, but not doctrine except to the extent that it agrees with doctrine in the scripture.

Still, when Mormons want to understand a gospel word or concept, they turn first, just as often as not to Mormon Doctrine. Agree with him or not, McConkie was/is a fountain of knowledge. If the question is should I accept the word of a random poster on the internet or accept the word of a 40 year general authority who's work is published by the Church and respected by millions, guess where I fall?

Oh Snow...you didn't know? BRM's book Mormon Doctrine was not okayed by the Prophet David O. Infact over 700 errors were found in it when they finally found out it was in the publics hands already.

But....they have made several changes....BRM may have written books, but that hardly makes him an authority....even the evangelists write lots of books...

I think the best place to get doctrine verified is through the obedience....D&C 121:45

Indeed, there were, and are many errors in that book. The antimormons LOVE that thing... it is full of alleged doctrine (see the title of the book), which IS NOT doctrine. And he was censured for claiming that the Catholic Church was the great and abominable church, among other things. He publicly apologized for this statement and retracted it. Further, his censures are not public record. Some leaked out, but there is not an offfical public record, to my knowledge.

Moreover, I find it almost comical that Snow is so bent on limiting doctrine to the canon and little else, but apparently embraces with vigor a book called Mormon Doctrine--that is not Mormon doctrine at all--according to Snow's definition of doctrine. Thus, using Snow's definition, the title of the book is itself a lie, yet he apparently loves the thing. Go figure.

EDIT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has NEVER and does not currently publish Mormon Doctrine. It is published by a private enterprise. The book is not authorized by The Church in any way.

There was ...and maybe I can get my hands on it again...the actual minutes of the meeting where David O made a statement as to how they were going to handle the BRM book since it was already in public hands.

i think BRM was a great man...don't get me wrong.

But he did have a lot of arigance (sp).

[Snow]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 15 2004, 08:00 AM

Oh Snow...you didn't know? BRM's book Mormon Doctrine was not okayed by the Prophet David O. Infact over 700 errors were found in it when they finally found out it was in the publics hands already.

But....they have made several changes....BRM may have written books, but that hardly makes him an authority....

Stask,

Neither was the publication of the Book of Mormon ok'd by President McKay. What the point? And at 700, that would still make it several thousand short of the BoM wouldn't it.

...and if you like, I will acknowledge that you don't think that apostles are necessarily authorities. Point acknowledged.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ammon@Apr 15 2004, 10:25 AM

Indeed, there were, and are many errors in that book. The antimormons LOVE that thing... it is full of alleged doctrine (see the title of the book), which IS NOT doctrine. And he was censured for claiming that the Catholic Church was the great and abominable church, among other things. He publicly apologized for this statement and retracted it. Further, his censures are not public record. Some leaked out, but there is not an offfical public record, to my knowledge.

Moreover, I find it almost comical that Snow is so bent on limiting doctrine to the canon and little else, but apparently embraces with vigor a book called Mormon Doctrine--that is not Mormon doctrine at all--according to Snow's definition of doctrine. Thus, using Snow's definition, the title of the book is itself a lie, yet he apparently loves the thing. Go figure.

EDIT: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has NEVER and does not currently publish Mormon Doctrine. It is published by a private enterprise. The book is not authorized by The Church in any way.

Yeah, here's the deal Ammon,

When you fabricate my position and mock the Lord's annointed, you don't get a free ride from me. What you do is disgusting, and I am sure that with a little looking I could find some pretty strong and condemnatory langauge about it is scripture and general conference addresses, besides it being an egegious violation of temple covenants. If you're not ashamed then I am ashamed of you for the both of us.

As far as my embracing the book Mormon Doctrine, my position is entirely defendable. I believe that it is a valuable tool to gain greater understanding of specific point of gospel study. It is not doctrine but is one man's ( a man recognized as a select group of gospel scholars in recent LDS leadership) explanation of doctrine. Period. The title is hardly a lie and the very thought is foolish. You are foolish. You should accord the Lord's chosen the respect that they deserve.

Further, you claim that he was the most censured General Authority ever. That's a outright false statement, a lie, a deliberate falsehood you created to attack an apostle. As an official rebuke, I doubt there is any such thing. If you did not need official rebuke, your statement is still false, as you amply demonstrated by resorting to an appeal to ignorance (uh, the censures are not public). You ought to pick your mistruth more carefully.

Note: my apologies. Bookcraft is not LDS owened.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

I have been visiting a spanish message board for evangelical christians (to practice speaking spanish by regurgitating all my old arguments from LDS talk in spanish)...

I use babelfish to translate alot of stuff. Every time I forget how to spell "espiritu" (don't ask me why I forget that so often)...I type "spirit" into babelfish and guess what word appears?

"Alcohol".

"The Holy Alcohol" was one of my favorite phrases to pop up in babelfish.

So anyway, that is what I think of when I hear the word "spirits"...