My Theory on Who Is the Holy Ghost

[CV75]

Just now, anatess2 said:

You may not believe in the Catholic Trinity but it is disingenuous to call it groundless.

The post I was responding to initiated the comparison to criticize our doctrine, so i was reflecting that.

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The post I was responding to initiated the comparison to criticize our doctrine, so i was reflecting that.

The minute you speak untruth (when you know better) in a conversation regardless of who started it, is when you lose the conversation.

Edited December 3, 2018 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

 

Who in their right mind would expect to know and understand spiritual mechanics, especially to the point of criticizing and berating our doctrine on the Holy Ghost as always representing a mystery as groundless as the Catholic Trinity? Hogwash. Posted Friday at 10:16 AM

Clearly the restored doctrine is not understood by such a one.

 

It is otherwise hypocritical to make the covenants and perform the ordinances, because in this realm acting upon spiritual things is about faith, not about mechanical dexterity. This is why I kept pointing out that taking a mechanistic approach to the scriptures is folly.

 

Here’s a far better working description of what a “mystery” is: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/mystery?lang=eng

 

“Denotes in the New Testament a spiritual truth that was once hidden but now is revealed and that without special revelation would have remained unknown. It is generally used along with words denoting revelation or publication (Rom. 16:25–26; Eph. 1:9; 3:3–10; Col. 1:26; 4:3; 1 Tim. 3:16). The modern meaning of something incomprehensible forms no part of the significance of the word as it occurs in the New Testament. See also Alma 12:9–11; 40:3; D&C 19:10; 42:61–65; 76:5–10. On the other hand, there is no spiritual gain in idle speculation about things the Lord has not revealed. See Deut. 29:29; Alma 37:11.”

 

See also: https://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Mysteries_of_God. The initiated can identify what is happening in the role and action of the Holy Ghost, and understand how the Holy Ghost works in spiritual terms.

 

I'm not being critical of our doctrine, I'm just saying that which we think we know so much about we don't really know that much at all. I have read many conference talks and opinions varry from one to the next in the details of the Holy Ghost. We, as a church, claim to know these mysteries at the same time discounting other religions for having unsound or mysteries doctrines such as the Trinity. But in fact, our doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost is no different. As a doctrine, it very much is shrouded in mystery- an unexplainable phenonmenon. There are certain things we do know about the Holy Ghost because we can feel it, we can speak with that gift and know the authority of truth feel it within our souls. But beyond that, we do not understand how him being a singular Deity operates and why his Spirit form enables the gift to be made manifest of which otherwise is not made manifest.

In my patriarchal blessing it states I can exert the Spirit unto others into convincing them of truth. So, this is the Holy Ghost being exerted, which I take to mean leaving my voice and carried into them. I do believe this spiritual light or spirit leaving me and entering them is indeed a substance -have a real tangible sequence of spiritual matter. But I do not for a minute believe that this Holy Ghost being exerted is a singular entity of Deity. There are other questions that are raised such as-

1. Why does the Holy Ghost not have a body and it appears never will in eternity? If we do not receive a fullness of joy without a body then the HG will never have a fulness. This is incomprehensible to me.

2. Why does the throne of God in eternity only have two seats and two forms (the Father and the Son)we worship and not three?

 

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The minute you speak untruth (when you know better) in a conversation regardless of who started it, is when you lose the conversation.

I wasn't speaking an untruth -- my reply was not to defend the Catholic Trinity but to show that our doctrine is not as inexplicable or groundless as he suggested the Catholic Trinity is. I don't personally believe the in the Catholic Trinity, but that is besides the point. If i wasn't a member of the Church and held to her doctrines, I might well believe it.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I'm not being critical of our doctrine, I'm just saying that which we think we know so much about we don't really know that much at all. I have read many conference talks and opinions varry from one to the next in the details of the Holy Ghost. We, as a church, claim to know these mysteries at the same time discounting other religions for having unsound or mysteries doctrines such as the Trinity. But in fact, our doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost is no different. As a doctrine, it very much is shrouded in mystery- an unexplainable phenonmenon. There are certain things we do know about the Holy Ghost because we can feel it, we can speak with that gift and know the authority of truth feel it within our souls. But beyond that, we do not understand how him being a singular Deity operates and why his Spirit form enables the gift to be made manifest of which otherwise is not made manifest.

In my patriarchal blessing it states I can exert the Spirit unto others into convincing them of truth. So, this is the Holy Ghost being exerted, which I take to mean leaving my voice and carried into them. I do believe this spiritual light or spirit leaving me and entering them is indeed a substance -have a real tangible sequence of spiritual matter. But I do not for a minute believe that this Holy Ghost being exerted is a singular entity of Deity. There are other questions that are raised such as-

1. Why does the Holy Ghost not have a body and it appears never will in eternity? If we do not receive a fullness of joy without a body then the HG will never have a fulness. This is incomprehensible to me.

2. Why does the throne of God in eternity only have two seats and two forms (the Father and the Son)we worship and not three?

 

You come across to me as critical. Let’s use the scriptural meaning of “mystery” in relation to gospel doctrine because describing what we do have and known as "shrouded" and "unexplainable" is rhetoric, pure and simple. I cannot think of any deity that operates as a singular entity or in isolation, nor of any doctrine of ours that suggests such.

Your patriarchal blessing is your business, but “unto” does not mean “into” or “enter.” There is much about this on lds.org. Your personal comprehension is also your business until you begin to negatively represent our doctrines for discussion purposes.

It only appears to me that the Holy Ghost hasn’t a body now. Who knows about the future, and how would this information change anything about what you are expected to do anyway? Is what you find incomprehensible detracting you from keeping your covenants?

Given the scriptures and our correlated teachings, who rules from the throne, and why would you want to render obeisance to the Holy Ghost? Why would you expect him to have a seat? I’m going to leave most of this up to you to noodle over, along with the examples of the Holy Ghost dwelling in someone. That is a mystery is the true sense, and is in plain sight in the scriptures and Church History.

Edited December 3, 2018 by CV75

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You come across to me as critical. Let’s use the scriptural meaning of “mystery” in relation to gospel doctrine because describing what we do have and known as "shrouded" and "unexplainable" is rhetoric, pure and simple. I cannot think of any deity that operates as a singular entity or in isolation, nor of any doctrine of ours that suggests such.

Your patriarchal blessing is your business, but “unto” does not mean “into” or “enter.” There is much about this on lds.org. Your personal comprehension is also your business until you begin to negatively represent our doctrines for discussion purposes.

It only appears to me that the Holy Ghost hasn’t a body now. Who knows about the future, and how would this information change anything about what you are expected to do anyway? Is what you find incomprehensible detracting you from keeping your covenants?

Given the scriptures and our correlated teachings, who rules from the throne, and why would you want to render obeisance to the Holy Ghost? Why would you expect him to have a seat? I’m going to leave most of this up to you to noodle over, along with the examples of the Holy Ghost dwelling in someone. That is a mystery is the true sense, and is in plain sight in the scriptures and Church History.

I'm only being critical with what appears to be a part of dishonesty on our part as a whole. We claim to know how the Holy Ghost works but yet it appears we don't really know-how it's a series of vague understandings that don't settle the matter at all. That's all I am pointing out. We speak of the Holy Ghost as a singular being who can only physically be in one place at a time but yet at the same time dwell within each of us. But then, we see the folly and instead claim that it's his "influence". But yet we are unsure what this influence is- if it's actual spirit matter or something else altogether.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I'm only being critical with what appears to be a part of dishonesty on our part as a whole. We claim to know how the Holy Ghost works but yet it appears we don't really know-how it's a series of vague understandings that don't settle the matter at all. That's all I am pointing out. We speak of the Holy Ghost as a singular being who can only physically be in one place at a time but yet at the same time dwell within each of us. But then, we see the folly and instead claim that it's his "influence". But yet we are unsure what this influence is- if it's actual spirit matter or something else altogether.

Then aside from the rhetoric, I think you have drawn some very mixed-up conclusions. I recommend you review all the basics and consider the semantics which have a very useful purpose. Your observations are not about "we," they are really about about "you." Take ownership of your confusion and responsibility for your learning. It doesn't help you to "point out" before you listen, and then instead of listening only refute because it contradicts what you mistakenly point out as a contradiction in the first place.

I see some very serious flaws in your summary above. They are like, "Can God create a rock so big He can't pick it up." The contradictions you present are artificial, and are easily  reconciled, but you really have to change your approach.

For example, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, occupies one space at a time, and dwells in us. I see no contradiction because of how he does that. Evil spirits do it, according to scripture. Who qualifies for demonic possession, and how many souls can one devil possess at a time, and for how long to they dwell in someone?

For example, many people feel the power, influence, sanctification, guidance, protection, witness, revelation, etc. of the Holy Ghost at once, both in the earth and in the spirit world, just as they do the light of Christ, though the personage occupies one place at a time. Not rocket science.

For example, the Father and Son are personages of flesh and bone, occupy one space at a time (respectively), and dwell in no one. I see no contradiction between that and what is said of the Holy Ghost above.

[Rob Osborn]

28 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Then aside from the rhetoric, I think you have drawn some very mixed-up conclusions. I recommend you review all the basics and consider the semantics which have a very useful purpose. Your observations are not about "we," they are really about about "you." Take ownership of your confusion and responsibility for your learning. It doesn't help you to "point out" before you listen, and then instead of listening only refute because it contradicts what you mistakenly point out as a contradiction in the first place.

I see some very serious flaws in your summary above. They are like, "Can God create a rock so big He can't pick it up." The contradictions you present are artificial, and are easily  reconciled, but you really have to change your approach.

For example, the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, occupies one space at a time, and dwells in us. I see no contradiction because of how he does that. Evil spirits do it, according to scripture. Who qualifies for demonic possession, and how many souls can one devil possess at a time, and for how long to they dwell in someone?

For example, many people feel the power, influence, sanctification, guidance, protection, witness, revelation, etc. of the Holy Ghost at once, both in the earth and in the spirit world, just as they do the light of Christ, though the personage occupies one place at a time. Not rocket science.

For example, the Father and Son are personages of flesh and bone, occupy one space at a time (respectively), and dwell in no one. I see no contradiction between that and what is said of the Holy Ghost above.

The light of Christ is different though. Its not a spiritual personage. Theres a lot of difference. We can all feel the Holy Ghost at the same time, I recognize that. But its not very clear how that ministration happens. I have my own theories but I dont believe for a minute that the Holy Ghost, as a singular and definable personage, is occupying our souls at the same time. There is a lot of mystery- details we do not understand, that deal with how that ministration happens. Thsts what I am stating. The doctrine put out by the church does not detail the workings of the HG ministration and how it works- how one personage can influence us or be in us all at the same time.

My personal theory on the matter is that the ministration of the Holy Ghost is carried out by angels who are appointed such authority. As such, they act in behalf of God and are considered tgat witness of God. Thus, why there is no throne in eternity because the Holy Ghost isnt a unique singular figure of Deity.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

The light of Christ is different though. Its not a spiritual personage. Theres a lot of difference. We can all feel the Holy Ghost at the same time, I recognize that. But its not very clear how that ministration happens. I have my own theories but I dont believe for a minute that the Holy Ghost, as a singular and definable personage, is occupying our souls at the same time. There is a lot of mystery- details we do not understand, that deal with how that ministration happens. Thsts what I am stating. The doctrine put out by the church does not detail the workings of the HG ministration and how it works- how one personage can influence us or be in us all at the same time.

My personal theory on the matter is that the ministration of the Holy Ghost is carried out by angels who are appointed such authority. As such, they act in behalf of God and are considered tgat witness of God. Thus, why there is no throne in eternity because the Holy Ghost isnt a unique singular figure of Deity.

The light of Christ comes from Jesus' spirit. It came from His spirit from before the foundation of the world.

D&C 130:22-23 isn't saying "the Holy Ghost, as a singular and definable personage, is occupying our souls at the same time." The Church doesn't teach that. You keep ignoring that, and evidently what I wrote above. Choose to be confused!

The gospel is built upon the concept that one personage, and that the three personages together can influence us all at the same time. i have no qualms about any of them using delegates as part of their work and influence, but your personal theory is not new, unique, nor necessary to resolve so-called shrouded and unexplainable doctrine or artificial contradictions. And it doesn't address your original concern about why he doesn't have a body. There are so many holes in it in light of your other assertions that I don't even want to go down that road.

Edited December 3, 2018 by CV75

[Guest]

On 11/29/2018 at 10:19 PM, clbent04 said:

But just as apologetics of the Church defend Joseph Smith's more unusual statements by saying he misspoke as a man, could these statements not also be the case?  Nothing is substantiated by the Church on the matter as far as I know.  

Consider what you just said here.

You were wondering why Vort warned that testimonies could be destroyed by this level of speculation?  This is why.

In order for your speculation to be true, you have to abandon the words of prophets who havespoken pretty well established doctrines.  In other words, to believe your theory is true, you have to abandon true doctrine and believe your word is more important than a prophet.

Do you truly believe that doesn't sound like apostasy?  Do you not see this as the beginnings of losing your faith?

[clbent04]

36 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Consider what you just said here.

You were wondering why Vort warned that testimonies could be destroyed by this level of speculation?  This is why.

In order for your speculation to be true, you have to abandon the words of prophets who havespoken pretty well established doctrines.  In other words, to believe your theory is true, you have to abandon true doctrine and believe your word is more important than a prophet.

Do you truly believe that doesn't sound like apostasy?  Do you not see this as the beginnings of losing your faith?

No, I don’t see it as apostasy or the beginnings of me losing my faith. 

I have read prominent LDS apologetics’ answers stating that prophets, especially in the early days of the Church, misspoke as men, and weren’t speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Church in some instances.

How am I to know this isn’t one of those instances?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only times prophets’ words become part of the official doctrine and gospel of the Church is when the Church itself validates it. Is that not true? If it’s not true, I would happily retract ever questioning prophets having misspoke as men, but I would first seek to understand why several prominent LDS apologetics use “prophets misspeaking as men” as an argument to defend the Church’s faith. I would have to revisit every statement a prophet has ever said as truth.

So you tell me, am I missunderstanding something here? Do you think me wondering if a prophet may have misspoke in a certain instance is the beginnings of apostasy when I’m only doing so by following the logic I’ve seen faithful members use in the Church’s defense?

Edited December 4, 2018 by clbent04

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

The light of Christ comes from Jesus' spirit. It came from His spirit from before the foundation of the world.

D&C 130:22-23 isn't saying "the Holy Ghost, as a singular and definable personage, is occupying our souls at the same time." The Church doesn't teach that. You keep ignoring that, and evidently what I wrote above. Choose to be confused!

The gospel is built upon the concept that one personage, and that the three personages together can influence us all at the same time. i have no qualms about any of them using delegates as part of their work and influence, but your personal theory is not new, unique, nor necessary to resolve so-called shrouded and unexplainable doctrine or artificial contradictions. And it doesn't address your original concern about why he doesn't have a body. There are so many holes in it in light of your other assertions that I don't even want to go down that road.

To be specific, D&C 130:22 states-

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

So, the scriptures state the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit for the purpose of dwelling in us. But we teach that it's not really his literal self- his literal Spirit personage dwelling in us but rather his "influence". Okay...so what is it about him that requires him being a Spirit, void of a physical body, so that his "influence" can dwell in us? Where the rubber meets the road is with him being in Spirit form, he can indeed dwell inside of people. But, apparently he can only be in one place at a time. So, in essence, when we say the Holy Ghost dwells within us we don't really mean the disembodied presence of the Holy Ghost but rather his "influence". So, what is this "influence"?

[Guest]

8 hours ago, clbent04 said:

No, I don’t see it as apostasy or the beginnings of me losing my faith. 

I have read prominent LDS apologetics’ answers stating that prophets, especially in the early days of the Church, misspoke as men, and weren’t speaking in an official capacity on behalf of the Church in some instances.

How am I to know this isn’t one of those instances?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the only times prophets’ words become part of the official doctrine and gospel of the Church is when the Church itself validates it. Is that not true? If it’s not true, I would happily retract ever questioning prophets having misspoke as men, but I would first seek to understand why several prominent LDS apologetics use “prophets misspeaking as men” as an argument to defend the Church’s faith. I would have to revisit every statement a prophet has ever said as truth.

So you tell me, am I missunderstanding something here? Do you think me wondering if a prophet may have misspoke in a certain instance is the beginnings of apostasy when I’m only doing so by following the logic I’ve seen faithful members use in the Church’s defense?

You didn't get the crux of my argument.  It's NOT just one man who said ONE satement.  It has to do with what is accepted doctrine which has been repeated and confirmed by every prophet since Joseph Smith.

1) You're not talking about something that is just at the edge of our understanding.  You're talking about some highly speculative idea that you yourself stated that you have absolutely no basis for.
2) You're not talking about a second or third hand statement (Joseph's quote) that has never been verified or confirmed.  You're talking about doctrine that has been accepted doctrine for over 170 years and is a vital part of our beliefs.

And in order to accept you baseless speculation, you have to ignore or give up accepted doctrine.  This means that you're putting your own speculation as being more important and more accurate than the statements of the Church (through prophets, apostles, and Church publications) for 170 years.

Remember the tripod.  Speculation alone is not all that dangerous.  But when you put that much weight on a single leg (your own intuition) without putting equal value on the other two legs, then ... you ... will ... fall.

If you don't see the dangers of that, then maybe you and Rob Osborn would get along just fine.  He has basically told everyone that his Patriarchal Blessing gives him the authority to say anything he wants because he's supposed to be the one to correct the prophets and apostles later in life.  Is that who you want to be?  Think about that.  He's supposed to "correct the prophets who have gone astray with false doctrine".  But he sees nothing wrong with that.

How are you any different here?

clbent,

Right now, you're a decent kid who is simply wondering about things.  But when you go off on these paths without a foundation, where do you think you're going?  What else has no foundation?

Keep this up, and you'll find yourself in the great and spacious building.  This is not an accusation.  This is not a threat. This is barely even a warning.  It is a plea for you to get back to the iron rod.  Remember, the "word of God"?  Where is the word of God in all that you've speculated?  If it is only "what the Spirit says" when you've already said it runs counter to what MANY prophets have said on the topic, you have to begin to wonder "what spirit are you listening to?"

Edited December 4, 2018 by Guest

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎12‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 9:15 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

So was Jesus. 

Why? No one replaced Jesus. 

I think it is implied elsewhere that Adam was in the presidency and was a spirit at that point, but it's not something we really discuss outside of that limited area where it is discussed.

It does NOT state that Adam WAS the Holy Ghost, but the assumption I would say is because we KNOW the three members of the Godhead, and it is discussed who the three members of the First Presidency of Heaven were, there is a parallel.

The difference between the Holy Ghost is that it is a Spirit (as far as I know) at all times in it's operation.  It is also part of the promise and gift we receive as an Ordinance. 

On the otherhand, while the Second Comforter could also be seen as an Ordinance or action, it is not as common (as far as I know, most in the Church who have received the Gift of the Holy Ghost do not seem to indicate that they have also had the Second Comforter come) as the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  Jesus was on Earth for only a short period.  He still had his place in the First Presidency (or so I would assume) because that position did not require him in any other aspect.

As the Holy Ghost is specifically Spirit, it would seem that once one was NOT spirit, they could not fulfill that function.  If we accept the idea that Adam now has gone onto his salvation as part of the First Resurrection at the time of the Lord's Resurrection, than he also would no longer be Spirit now.

WE DO know that he stood with the Lord in Gethsemane so it may be that after he died in this world he served once again in a capacity as a Holy Ghost or something similar, but I do not know.

It is guesswork and thoughts on the matter on my part, nothing solid.

Joseph Fielding Smith who mentioned the Grandfather/Father/Son idea elaborated on Adam.  He presents the idea that (and I think he quotes Moses 5) Adam himself received all the ordinances which included receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost.  Adam also received the fullness of the Priesthood and as Michael now holds (presently, but not necessarily previously, his wording is interesting when he discusses this)ALL the keys of the Priesthood.  This means during his mortal life, at least, he could NOT have been the third member of the Godhead...or at least this is my thought.

On the otherhand, perhaps the First Presidency of Heaven and the Godhead are two different things, even as they share at least two members together.  It is only MY ASSUMPTION that they are the same.  It may be that Michael was and remained a part of that First Presidency, even in ignorance while a mortal on the Earth.  My thoughts (as he was separated at that point and thus needed the atonement) was that he was NOT, but that is only a thought and really has no real weight.

Edited December 4, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Jesus was on Earth for only a short period.  He still had his place in the First Presidency (or so I would assume) because that position did not require him in any other aspect.

Just to take this on another tangent:

Jesus' "place" in the First Presidency is to be ABOVE the First Presidency.  It would have been no different during his earthly ministry.  Even today with our First Presdiency of three mortal men, Jesus is above them and leads them.

[JohnsonJones]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Just to take this on another tangent:

Jesus' "place" in the First Presidency is to be ABOVE the First Presidency.  It would have been no different during his earthly ministry.  Even today with our First Presdiency of three mortal men, Jesus is above them and leads them.

I was talking about the Heavenly First Presidency.  This is composed of the Father, the Son, and talked about by some Prophets in the Early Church (well, up until around 1970 at least, so not THAT early I guess) also Michael who was the Archangel.

The Head of that Presidency is actually God the Father.

Due to the Parallels of the First Presidency and their Implied responsibilities (and you can either look up the JoD, read various teachings and writings by Joseph F or Joseph Fielding,  or simply go to the temple for further illumination on these aspects) I ASSUME (and we know all about those who assume...LoL) that they would also be the Godhead...but that is merely assumption on my part.  it does not outright state this anywhere.

Edited December 4, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

This thread is nothing but speculative, useless, potentially damaging, time-wasting garbage. I don't know that I've ever seen a greater collection of speculative, useless, potentially damaging, time wasting garbage.

Garbage, garbage, garbage.

Take it all and toss it in the waste bin where it belongs. And shame on all who participated therein, including myself.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

If you don't see the dangers of that, then maybe you and Rob Osborn would get along just fine.  He has basically told everyone that his Patriarchal Blessing gives him the authority to say anything he wants because he's supposed to be the one to correct the prophets and apostles later in life.  Is that who you want to be?  Think about that.  He's supposed to "correct the prophets who have gone astray with false doctrine".  But he sees nothing wrong with that.

Whoa there. Please don't mischaracterize me. I never said I had authority to say what ever I want. Where did you come up with that? And where do you think I believe the church leadership have gone astray? I never said such. Your beliefs about me are wholly incorrect and offensive. I love the prophets and apostles. I need their counsel. I listen to them and their prophetic revelations. I defend the church against those fringe members who are going astray. I'm not sure where you get these erroneous ideas about me but please cease.

[unixknight]

Am I the only one who feels a bit nervous about the possibility of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit happening in a discussion like this?  I mean, I know for it to be blasphemy it would have to be deliberate and with intent, and nobody is doing that here, certainly.  Nevertheless, the stakes are just so high...

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Am I the only one who feels a bit nervous about the possibility of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit happening in a discussion like this?  I mean, I know for it to be blasphemy it would have to be deliberate and with intent, and nobody is doing that here, certainly.  Nevertheless, the stakes are just so high...

Perhaps if the thread was renamed- "Things I don't understand about the nature of the Holy Ghost" it may have a more positive and desirable effect.

[CV75]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

To be specific, D&C 130:22 states-

22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

So, the scriptures state the Holy Ghost is a personage of Spirit for the purpose of dwelling in us. But we teach that it's not really his literal self- his literal Spirit personage dwelling in us but rather his "influence". Okay...so what is it about him that requires him being a Spirit, void of a physical body, so that his "influence" can dwell in us? Where the rubber meets the road is with him being in Spirit form, he can indeed dwell inside of people. But, apparently he can only be in one place at a time. So, in essence, when we say the Holy Ghost dwells within us we don't really mean the disembodied presence of the Holy Ghost but rather his "influence". So, what is this "influence"? 

I’m sorry but this is getting amusing, especially considering your “personal theory.”

We teach both.

We do not spend a lot of time teaching about how the Holy Ghost can inhabit people’s bodies like an evil spirit can, even though both are mentioned in the scriptures. That is what D&C 130:22 refers to. It can happen to us, but not to each and every one of us, all the time! It may be rare, but that is why he has to be a spirit (so he can do that). I don’t know how many times I’ve said this.

We spend a lot more time teaching about the power, influence etc. of both the adversary and the Holy Ghost, with most of the attention being give the Holy Ghost. That applies to everyone, all the time. He doesn’t have to be a spirit to do this, just as the Lord doesn’t with the light of Christ.

Do you ever tell someone they are in your thoughts? What do you mean when you say a deceased love one is forever in your thoughts, or even better, will always be a part of you? That is a bridge between the two concepts above, and in eh same way we are taught to keep God with us, and in our thoughts, always.

I’m fine with people integrating the three as one concept, for the Holy Ghost still has the same effect on their behavior and sanctification.

People can confuse evil spirits with good spirits.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I’m sorry but this is getting amusing, especially considering your “personal theory.”

 

We teach both.

 

We do not spend a lot of time teaching about how the Holy Ghost can inhabit people’s bodies like an evil spirit can, even though both are mentioned in the scriptures. That is what D&C 130:22 refers to. It can happen to us, but not to each and every one of us, all the time! It may be rare, but that is why he has to be a spirit (so he can do that). I don’t know how many times I’ve said this.

 

We spend a lot more time teaching about the power, influence etc. of both the adversary and the Holy Ghost, with most of the attention being give the Holy Ghost. That applies to everyone, all the time. He doesn’t have to be a spirit to do this, just as the Lord doesn’t with the light of Christ.

 

Do you ever tell someone they are in your thoughts? What do you mean when you say a deceased love one is forever in your thoughts, or even better, will always be a part of you? That is a bridge between the two concepts above, and in eh same way we are taught to keep God with us, and in our thoughts, always.

 

I’m fine with people integrating the three as one concept, for the Holy Ghost still has the same effect on their behavior and sanctification.

 

People can confuse evil spirits with good spirits.

 

I like to think that the power of the Holy Ghost "within" us is the actual change of our own spirit into being holy just like God. In our sacrament prayers we ask that through partaking of the sacrament and obedience to our covenants that those who partake may have his Spirit to be "with them". I take this to mean the companionship of the Holy Ghost. It's interesting however that the prayer doesn't say that they may have his Spirit to be "in" them. It's a small nuance but does change the meaning.

With the inclusion of D&C 130, our view of the HG is different than all other religions. We have the knowledge that the HG is in the form of a personage and that he is spirit so that he can come inside us. That's fine and all but we don't really teach that because of the obvious problems of jumping from one soul to the next. Instead we teach about the influence as being the part that comes inside us. I can definitely see that. As you mentioned, we can have others "in" our thoughts. Not that we actually have their  actual spirit inside of us. But we don't have to have them be spirits in order for them to be in our hearts and minds. And this logic all comes back to why a member of the Godhead would need to be in Spirit form if their influence and power is manifest to us whether embodied or not. Unless of course, the mission of the Holy Ghost is more of an assigned ministry by angels who are assigned to be with individual souls here on Earth.

[Rob Osborn]

86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial. (D&C 76:86)

6 Yea, he has undertaken a greater work; therefore I will make him as flaming fire and a ministering angel; he shall minister for those who shall be heirs of salvation who dwell on the earth. (D&C 7:6)

One could almost read these verses as the Holy Ghost being a ministering position held be various holy angels who God makes as a "flaming fire" to minister to those of us who are heirs of salvation. This flaming fire may be what we believe to be the baptism of fire.

 

[CV75]

I had a side-wager going on when D&C 76 and angelic possession would come up.

[Klaymen]

On 12/2/2018 at 9:23 PM, LePeel said:

"God shall give unto you knowledge by his Holy Spirit, yea, by the unspeakable gift of the Holy Ghost, that has not been revealed since the world was until now; Which our forefathers have awaited with anxious expectation to be revealed in the last times, which their minds were pointed to by the angels, as held in reserve for the fulness of their glory" D&C 121:26 

If the gift of the Holy Ghost had not been revealed until around the time of D&C 121, what exactly was going with Pentecost and later events in the book of Acts?  The New Testament is replete with references to the Holy Spirit.