Holy Spirit of Promise


mikbone
 Share

Recommended Posts

I think that there might be a misconception within the minds of some saints about this term. 

Bruce R. McConkie wrote:

Quote

“The operation and power of the Holy Spirit of Promise is best illustrated by the ordinance and contract of baptism. An unworthy candidate for baptism might deceive the elders and get the ordinance performed, but no one can lie to the Holy Ghost and get by undetected. Accordingly, the baptism of an unworthy and unrepentant person would not be sealed by the Spirit; it would not be ratified by the Holy Ghost; the unworthy person would not be justified by the Spirit in his actions. If thereafter he became worthy through repentance and obedience, the seal would then be put in force. Similarly, if a worthy person is baptized, with the ratifying approval of the Holy Ghost attending the performance, the seal may be broken by subsequent sin.

From his interpretation, I think that some have cast doubts upon the veracity of their ordinances.  

I don't think the scriptures that discuss the Holy Spirit of Promise actually justify McConkies's simplification.   And I don't think that it benefits anyone to judge the ratification process of ordinances based upon perceived deception, unworthiness, etc.

If it did, boy howdy there would be a huge problem within the church.  I am positive that many current priesthood holders can trace their line of authority thru elders that were unworthy during the time of confirmation or ordination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently the Lord is willing to an extent to recognize the acts of an unworthy priesthood holder. Kind of like an unworthy priest blessing the sacrament. Where the Lord draws that line I don't know. But the main idea in all of this is the role of the sealing power of the Holy Ghost. Performing something on earth, even by a priesthood holder, does not automatically mean it is recognized in heaven. This places more of the burden on the recipient of a priesthood action then the administerer of it.

I don't see a problem with what Elder McConkie said but perhaps I'm missing the point you are making.

Edited by laronius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with @laronius comment and last sentence. What scriptures are you referencing that you feel contradict his words?

I don't see him as perceiving, but explaining the following:

1) People can lie in a temple recommend and deceive a priesthood leader, but they can't deceive God. (This appears to be justified by all scripture)

2) The Spirit of Promise is what is necessary for any ordinance and act to be justified. (This appears to be inline with all scripture)

3) Sin removes us from the blessings of the Atonement if we do not repent. (This appears to be also inline with all scripture)

4) If a person was unworthy during an ordinance, but later repents, the Spirit of Promise will justify that ordinance. They don't need to be baptized again. (This seems to be accurate with scripture and modern teachings)

I'm not seeing anything about judging from our perspective in his thoughts. The judgement seems dependent on the Godhead.

Interesting story when I was at a sealing of a friend. The sealer said (paraphrased), "The hardest thing as a sealer is when you know a couple has received the ordinance of being sealed, but are unworthy of the ordinance. The Spirit of Promise did not justify the sealing ordinance. In time, you hope this couple repents so that the ordinance can be justified by the Spirit."

We know that we can become more sensitive to the Spirit, and the Spirit can witness to our heart and mind, especially if we are the one performing the ordinance. We can know the difference when the Spirit justifies and when it is not present. Now, would it have been fair for him, or any other sealer, to call out the couple? No, as that is the place of the bishop and stake president. He simply performed the ordinance, and let -- as the scriptures say -- God judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is that McConkie took a term found in the scriptures and redefined it to fit his needs.

If you read the 5 verses in the scriptures that contain the term Holy Spirit of Promise, they don’t really support his definition.

50A2D677-F271-4052-A4E5-24E3ED98250A.thumb.png.4eb764dee7ead3007dcaac2971363664.png

The first doesn't even have reference to an ordinance

The second is about Baptism

The third I like the most - is relating that faithful saints receive the same promise that was given to the disciples - that of eternal life, the Celestial Kingdom and the Church of the Firstborn.

The fourth is about Patriarchial blessings.

The fifth is about how all vows etc. that are not performed correctly, without authority, or without the Holy Ghost are not binding.

The fact that we use the term to point out that so and so’s ordinance (or our own in a moment of despair) was non-binding is tragic.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2021 at 4:47 PM, mikbone said:

The fact that we use the term to point out that so and so’s ordinance (or our own in a moment of despair) was non-binding is tragic.

Let's review section 132, "And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity... are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

This verse seems to make it clear that they need to be "sealed" by the Holy Spirit of promise" for it to have any affect after the resurrection, which confirms the meaning given by Bruce R. McConkie. Elder Bednar provides the following clarification with regards to the Holy Spirit of promise:

"The Holy Spirit of Promise is the ratifying power of the Holy Ghost. When sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, an ordinance, vow, or covenant is binding on earth and in heaven. (See D&C 132:7.) Receiving this “stamp of approval” from the Holy Ghost is the result of faithfulness, integrity, and steadfastness in honoring gospel covenants “in [the] process of time” (Moses 7:21). However, this sealing can be forfeited through unrighteousness and transgression. Purifying and sealing by the Holy Spirit of Promise constitute the culminating steps in the process of being born again." (emphasis mine)

As to the following statement, "in a moment of despair," I have never seen such judgement. I have only seen and experienced such statements that if you continue in unrighteousness, breaking the commandments, then as the scriptures clearly state -- "you have no promise." When we break the commandments, we break that seal, and I believe you understand the difference between a saint and sinner (as both are sinners). Yes, our moments of despair -- if that despair lead to adultery -- breaks that bind/sealing if we do not repent. This isn't tragic knowledge.

Truth isn't tragic. The scriptures (modern and past) are clear pertaining to the required need of the Holy Spirit of promise to seal all covenants, all ordinances, all vows, etc. This isn't tragic. It is necessary understanding to know what is required for us to become like our Father in heaven.

So, I'm not seeing this concept the same way as I am reading what you are presenting, or what has brought you to this feeling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2021 at 12:19 PM, Anddenex said:

Interesting story when I was at a sealing of a friend. The sealer said (paraphrased), "The hardest thing as a sealer is when you know a couple has received the ordinance of being sealed, but are unworthy of the ordinance. The Spirit of Promise did not justify the sealing ordinance. In time, you hope this couple repents so that the ordinance can be justified by the Spirit."

In this instance, I would lean toward 3 Ne 18: 28-29 as my guide, instead of McConkie's entry in Mormon Doctrine.  

All I'm saying is that sometimes we oversimplify and take terms that are written in the scriptures and use them in a way that was not intended.

For example, we were on vacation yesterday and we saw the most beautiful sunset.  But the term sunset is a misnomer.  The sun does not set or rise.  The Earth rotates.  No doubt those terms pre-date Copernicus (referencing the geocentric model), we just use them because they are convenient.  But they are erroneous.  Likewise, one of my favorite NASA pictures is called Earthrise.  But if we had a base on the Moon you would never see Earth rise.  The near side of the Moon is always pointed at the Earth.  So if you were on the Moon you would see the Earth hung up in the same spot in the sky every day (but you would be able to watch the earth rotate).  

 

I do acknowledge D&C 132:7, but I read it as follows.  Blessings from the Lord are conditional, requiring: 

1) covenant, contract, bond, obligation, oath, vow, performances, expectations (ordinance)

2) Sealing power of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Spirit of promise. 

3) Performed by one who is anointed.

If the ordinance does not fulfill all of the above, it is null and void.  

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share