The Nature of the Holy Spirit

[_moksha]

Another repost from Mormon philosopher Bill at Beliefnet:

Moksha: "Would we want every member getting advice from God and the Holy Ghost. I mean, I understand how good that sounds that God will personally guide and direct us, but I also know that many messages people get are rather kooky and of questionable origin."

Moksha, let me jump on this to dialogue with you about another way of looking at it. I may be the most off-topic in bringing this up, but I'm also pretty scatter-brained, so it's now or never.

We speak of the Holy Ghost as being "a personage of spirit," precisely so that he can dwell in us. To me, that's a difficult belief to maintain. It's like trying to tell a kid, with a straight face, that Santa really does hit all those chimneys in one night.

As a form of personification, maybe it makes the story simpler, but to imagine that the Holy Ghost ministers to us by whipping through us like a hot knife through butter is, in my often un-humble opinion, sheer absurdity. I'm not saying it couldn't happen: Look at what light does. But light is not a person with a fixed location. Come to think of it, light is pretty absurd since, as Einstein puts it, it's both a wave and a particle. So maybe Santa does get busy on Christmas Eve - and maybe he's got good insurance.

But if we allow for the idea of "personification," then the Holy Ghost's "ministrations" may be a simpler, more childlike, way of telling people to behave in such a way that they could comfortably have the Holy Ghost over for dinner. (What does he eat? Angelfood cake?)

If we change our framework to one of attunement, the Holy Ghost CAN be inside an infinite number of people SIMULTANEOUSLY. If the Holy Ghost is broadcasting, your job is to "tune in." Attunement requires a constant focus on the divine. The opposite of attunement would be another kind of attunement, toward a different kind of broadcast, namely the temptations of the Adversary.

If we imagine that consciousness involves an ever-changing mix of data - including perception, reaction, reflection and the possibility of "reception" - with the thoughts, prayers, intentions, guidance and temptation coming at us - we end up with a model of the mind that involves management of different impulses, voices, instincts, influences, et cetera.

You are what you eat. You are also what you do. But before you take action, you are what you think. Maybe that's why Jesus speaks of managing one's thoughts. In his famous discussion about "adultery in one's heart," Jesus is either saying that it's a sin to lust or he's saying that the sin of adultery begins with the indiscretion of lust. The difference between the two is that adultery is a serious sin, one that would have gotten you stoned in Jesus's day - and excommunicated today. Lust, on the other hand, is reckless behavior. It's a form of self-temptation that weakens the resolve.

Jesus famously told his disciples to pluck out their offending eyes and cut off their offending hands. To me, this is either the most irresponsible advice ever given or wise counsel. Offending hands are usually preceded by offending eyes. The idea is to stop sin as close to its beginning as possible. If Jesus was "tempted even as we are," then he was subject to the same voices, instincts, impulses, et cetera - and if Jesus is held up as the world's only sinful man, then it's not a sin to be tempted. But to dwell in temptation is a different story.

If you don't look once, you're not a man.
If you look twice, you're not a missionary.

In fact, we are always following "direction," and in some direction, and at some speed. The moment we lose sight of the divine, we are drifting in some other direction. If allowed to continue drifting, thought leads to action and results aren't far behind. To have "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is to have the promise - as contractually provided for in the appropriate ordinance - to have the "companionship" of the Holy Ghost as long as we remain worthy of it.

To take this promise at face value, one would expect a person to benefit from this guidance as long as one's thoughts were in attunement with the divine. The only exception that would be just is divinely appointed irony. According to the scriptures, there are times when God wants people to grope in the dark. He rigs the game so that people have to develop new skills, including special effort to "listen to the voice of the Spirit."

Is it possible, then, to be bombarded with spiritual guidance on an almost constant basis? Yes and no. This framework would suggest that spiritual guidance is more readily available than one might think, particularly because it's not like ordering room service to "access the Spirit." If the Holy Spirit is broadcasting day and night, it's really a matter of "tuning in." But any such model would also have to take into account this thing call agency. If everything were a matter of getting the divine take on things, there would be no individuality. We would all just be human fax machines. Does God really have an answer for everything or is he more like a mentor, a counselor you go to for advice when seeking the perspective of the Infinite?

[_Gadianton]

I've used the Santa analogy myself. But if he's right, then I wonder why he thinks the Holy Ghost needs to be a, er, ghost. If he doesn't have to literally dwell in us, why does he need to be built so he can? Afterall, Mormons also believe in the Light of Christ which is also some basic apprehension of right and wrong all people tune in to, yet, Christ can still radiate this frequency while maintaining a physical body.

[_The Nehor]

We can do no more than guess on this point but my personal guess is that the Holy Ghost can dwell in all of us because he is eternal and therefore to our perception can be in many places at once but to his he is in all at once.

[_JAK]

We can do no more than guess on this point but my personal guess is that the Holy Ghost can dwell in all of us because he is eternal and therefore to our perception can be in many places at once but to his he is in all at once.

Assumption upon assumption upon assumption. No evidence for "Holy Ghost" has been presented.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

We can do no more than guess on this point but my personal guess is that the Holy Ghost can dwell in all of us because he is eternal and therefore to our perception can be in many places at once but to his he is in all at once.

Assumption upon assumption upon assumption. No evidence for "Holy Ghost" has been presented.

JAK

Hopefully one day you'll find your evidence, good luck.

[_JAK]

We can do no more than guess on this point but my personal guess is that the Holy Ghost can dwell in all of us because he is eternal and therefore to our perception can be in many places at once but to his he is in all at once.

Not only a sexist comment but arrogant with pontificating. The assumption of such an entity as “Holy Ghost” is not established or reliable. The additional assumption of male sex implies that sex is relevant somehow for the claimed entity.

Keep in mind the mythology is ancient. The more ancient a mythology, the less reliable and the less it relies on evidence for support.

Your “guess” is irrelevant as are other claims regarding a "Holy Ghost" invention.

JAK

[_JAK]

We can do no more than guess on this point but my personal guess is that the Holy Ghost can dwell in all of us because he is eternal and therefore to our perception can be in many places at once but to his he is in all at once.

Assumption upon assumption upon assumption. No evidence for "Holy Ghost" has been presented.

JAK

Hopefully one day you'll find your evidence, good luck.

He who makes a claim has the burden of proof. What’s the evidence for any holy ghost claim?

Ancient myth is not sufficient for meeting the burden of proof.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

When someone tells me they are making a guess I don't demand proof. Maybe things work differently in your world.

Also, I've told you before the proof of 'God-claims' comes from individual pursuit, not a collective intellectual consensus. This would make sense as my theology is focussed on the individual choices of people not the collective knowledge of any 'church group' or 'climate of opinion' etc.

[_JAK]

Nehor’s statement:
We can do no more than guess on this point but my personal guess is that the Holy Ghost can dwell in all of us because he is eternal and therefore to our perception can be in many places at once but to his he is in all at once.

JAK’s response:
He who makes a claim has the burden of proof. What’s the evidence for any holy ghost claim?

Ancient myth is not sufficient for meeting the burden of proof.

Nehor’s rejoinder:
When someone tells me they are making a guess I don't demand proof. Maybe things work differently in your world.

Also, I've told you before the proof of 'God-claims' comes from individual pursuit, not a collective intellectual consensus. This would make sense as my theology is focussed (focused) on the individual choices of people not the collective knowledge of any 'church group' or 'climate of opinion' etc.

JAK’s response:
Your “guess” is only speculation about “...can dwell in all of us...” Your assumption absent evidence is an entity “Holy Ghost” AND that that entity is male.

You establish neither. But your implicit claim is for the entity characterized as “Holy Ghost” AND that that entity is male. The assumptions are lacking in evidential support.

JAK’s response:
Then you add:

Nehor:
Also, I've told you before the proof of 'God-claims' comes from individual pursuit, not a collective intellectual consensus. This would make sense as my theology is focussed (focused) on the individual choices of people not the collective knowledge of any 'church group' or 'climate of opinion' etc.

JAK’s response:
No support that “individual pursuit” is superior to “collective intellectual consensus.” In fact, the opposite can be demonstrated with evidence.

Virtually all we know is a product of collective intellectual consensus. Science relies on it. Our legal system relies on it. Specific intellectual inquiry such as medical evidence relies on it. Historically, nearly all discovery relies on collective intellectual consensus.

That is, “collective intellectual consensus” in general is superior to “individual pursuit” (whatever that means). It’s a vague and non-descript generalization which lacks definition and particulars.

You have offered nothing in the way of “proof of ‘God-claims’.” The statement can be linked to ancient, religious myth by evidence. Ancient scripts from which you and others make such claims are also demonstrated to be unreliable, contradictory, and open to a variety of interpretations which are in disagreement.

Piling one claim on top of another in no way reinforces the first claim. It’s a fatal flaw in your pretense at rational thought.

JAK:

[_The Nehor]

My evidence for the Holy Ghost claim is an experiment I attempted. Go pray to God and attempt to remove all prejudice from your mind and ask him to reveal himself to you.

If you are unwilling or unable to do that then there is nothing I can do for you.