Mormons - Holy Ghost

[Telstar]

Once again, why is it that Mormons, LDS people insist on using the term Holy GHOST? Is it because of the semi King James style English that the BOM is in?

Mormons and a hand full of Pentecostals are the only ones left that continue to use the term “ghost”, and the same Pentecostals also insist on the KJV as the only bible they will use.

Anyone using the term ‘Holy Ghost’ is completely irrelevant to this subject. I prefer using it, myself, and I’ve been Roman Catholic my whole life (unless you count the short period of time in my late teens/early twenties when I thought I knew it all and went ‘searching’ for my own ‘truth’, but that didn’t last very long after I was shown the error of ‘my ways’). I would never dream of using the KJV. I always use the DRV. Many other Catholics still use the term ‘Holy Ghost’, also. The reason I prefer it is because when someone is speaking of ‘the Spirit’, one can easily be confused about whether they are referring to a ‘human’ spirit, an ‘evil’ spirit, or God. The term ‘Holy Ghost’ is a very clear reference to the Third Person of the Holy Trinity (God), so there’s no confusion. There is only one Holy Ghost.

That being said, the LDS attempts to explain the Holy Ghost in light of their belief in the need of a physical body for any man to ‘progress to godhood’, are woefully inadequate. And, the claim by Dianaiad that Jesus was God before He became incarnate, is not exactly what all LDS believe. Some LDS have told me that Jesus was just like the rest of us in the ‘preexistence’, and didn’t become ‘God’ until after His death and resurrection, presumably because of His need for a physical body to fully progress to ‘godhood’.

So, trying to explain how the Holy Ghost can even be considered God is a conundrum that they really can’t explain, at all. It just doesn’t fit in their belief system, so they just ‘put it on the shelf’ along with ‘heavenly mother’. To me, that would be another huge red flag that something wasn’t quite kosher, but I wasn’t born into Mormonism. So, my use of logic in pondering that question is very different from their accepting a long held belief that they were taught from birth. The use of logic apparently doesn’t apply in that situation.

 

[LivingWaters7]

That being said, the LDS attempts to explain the Holy Ghost in light of their belief in the need of a physical body for any man to ‘progress to godhood’, are woefully inadequate. And, the claim by Dianaiad that Jesus was God before He became incarnate, is not exactly what all LDS believe. Some LDS have told me that Jesus was just like the rest of us in the ‘preexistence’, and didn’t become ‘God’ until after His death and resurrection, presumably because of His need for a physical body to fully progress to ‘godhood’.

Well I think it is pretty common for LDS to believe that Jesus was Jehovah, God of the Old Testament, prior to being born in the world. That is pretty standard belief (and yes, it is also believed that Jesus is a spirit son of the Father and Mother, the first one, just like we all are spirit sons and daughters of heavenly parents).

However, while they do believe that Jesus was a deity prior to the incarnation, it seems as if they don’t believe that He was fully God at that point, since, yes, a body is necessary for exaltation.

 

[Janderich]

For Mormons… if exaltation, the highest glory we can obtain, requires a physical body, why has the Holy Ghost been deprived of this honor? And if the Holy Ghost is not an exalted man, why is he part of the “Godhead” with the Heavenly Father and Jesus, both of whom have physical bodies?

Your conclusion about the Holy Ghost is filled with faulty assumptions:

1. Exaltation requires a perfected body - Many will obtain a body after the resurrection but they will not be exalted. To be exalted one must pass their current test, which for us here means overcoming the natural man and obtaining a perfected body.
2. Spirit is refined matter - Joseph Smith said “All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:7-8). So both physical and spiritual matter is of the same sort, one is just more refined than the other. Further, a resurrected body is a spiritual body (refined matter).
3. The Holy Ghost has not been deprived of a body - Again from Joseph Smith, “The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did.”[Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon, 1997]

In short, requirements for the Godhead have not been defined. Since they are not defined, statements about the need for a physical body and the Holy Ghost being deprived are clearly based on supposition and mans reasoning, not Gods.

 

[RebeccaJ]

For Mormons… if exaltation, the highest glory we can obtain, requires a physical body, why has the Holy Ghost been deprived of this honor? And if the Holy Ghost is not an exalted man, why is he part of the “Godhead” with the Heavenly Father and Jesus, both of whom have physical bodies?

There are as many explanations as there are Mormons, or at least, Mormons who have pondered this question and come to what they believe, as an individual, to be the correct conclusion. Janderich gave his. I know another Mormon who firmly believes, and defends with great passion, his conclusion which is the Holy Ghost is the shared mind of the two Gods, who Mormons call Father and Son.

As far as I know the Mormon Church does not have an official response to your question.

 

[twf]

Your conclusion about the Holy Ghost is filled with faulty assumptions:

1. Exaltation requires a perfected body - Many will obtain a body after the resurrection but they will not be exalted. To be exalted one must pass their current test, which for us here means overcoming the natural man and obtaining a perfected body.
2. Spirit is refined matter - Joseph Smith said “All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:7-8). So both physical and spiritual matter is of the same sort, one is just more refined than the other. Further, a resurrected body is a spiritual body (refined matter).
3. The Holy Ghost has not been deprived of a body - Again from Joseph Smith, “The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did.”[Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon, 1997]

In short, requirements for the Godhead have not been defined. Since they are not defined, statements about the need for a physical body and the Holy Ghost being deprived are clearly based on supposition and mans reasoning, not Gods.

Thank you for the explanation. I didn’t conclude anything - I asked a question from a Mormon perspective, the answer to which I did not know.

 

[twf]

Possibly. Why not? We all know Who He is.

The KJV is the ‘official’ bible of the LDS…because that’s the one with all the cross referencing. There’s no official demand that we use anything else. Can’t be, because we do exist in so many other nations and have the scriptures in so many other languages.

I’m told that the very best one is the German translation. Unfortunately, I don’t speak German so I’m stuck with the KJV, which I love because of the poetry. If I have a question or am confused about something, though, I will go to another good translation. Strongs, perhaps.

It’s hard to know which one to use, because some of 'em are really, REALLY bad. The 'Good News" bible, for instance…and what is the name of the one that is written in rap or something like that?

I have even (gasp) gone to the Duay from time to time.

Other than the fact that Joseph Smith just happened to be raised in a largely Protestant nation which, at least at the time, held the KJV in high regard, is there any official Mormon explanation as to why the KJV is the preferred English translation? It seems odd to me. The Catholic Church does not authorize the KJV in any official capacity, as the KJV is a Protestant translation - the Church, by her apostolic authority, authorizes her own translations. The gap between Catholicism and Protestantism is not as wide as the gap between Protestantism and Mormonism, yet adopting a Protestant Bible translated during a period between the Great Apostasy and the Restoration is OK?

 

[Janderich]

Thank you for the explanation. I didn’t conclude anything - I asked a question from a Mormon perspective, the answer to which I did not know.

Fair enough, sorry for the assumption. Actually I find this subject very important and honest questions are very valuable in understanding the truth about the Holy Ghost.

 

[vsedriver]

Your conclusion about the Holy Ghost is filled with faulty assumptions:

1. Exaltation requires a perfected body - Many will obtain a body after the resurrection but they will not be exalted. To be exalted one must pass their current test, which for us here means overcoming the natural man and obtaining a perfected body.
2. Spirit is refined matter - Joseph Smith said “All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:7-8). So both physical and spiritual matter is of the same sort, one is just more refined than the other. Further, a resurrected body is a spiritual body (refined matter).

if spirit is matter than the Mormon god is not God. The Mormon god is a creature with creative powers but not God as Christians understand who God is.

 

[dianaiad]

Other than the fact that Joseph Smith just happened to be raised in a largely Protestant nation which, at least at the time, held the KJV in high regard, is there any official Mormon explanation as to why the KJV is the preferred English translation?

No, that’s pretty much it. The church concentrated on one because it’s easier to cross reference one, and a lot cheaper to publish with all that cross referencing. There’s no underhanded or secretive use.

We are not believe that the bible…any version of it, is inerrant, you see. We are quite free to look for the best one. So far, the KJV works fine.

It seems odd to me. The Catholic Church does not authorize the KJV in any official capacity, as the KJV is a Protestant translation - the Church, by her apostolic authority, authorizes her own translations. The gap between Catholicism and Protestantism is not as wide as the gap between Protestantism and Mormonism, yet adopting a Protestant Bible translated during a period between the Great Apostasy and the Restoration is OK?

Why not?

True, Joseph Smith was working on his own translation before he died, but he did not complete it, and the Church of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints) had the copyright for most of it anyway. Besides that, Joseph’s work was considerably more of a study guide than a straight translation/version. So…the KJV.

It’s what we had. It’s good enough. It’s not perfect, but no version of the bible that we have today is.

 

[dianaiad]

if spirit is matter than the Mormon god is not God. The Mormon god is a creature with creative powers but not God as Christians understand who God is.

That many Christians (not all) understand Him differently than I do…or than you do for that matter, does not make God ‘not-God.’ It makes one of us incorrect about Him, but He is Who and What He is no matter what WE claim Him to be.

 

[twf]

No, that’s pretty much it. The church concentrated on one because it’s easier to cross reference one, and a lot cheaper to publish with all that cross referencing. There’s no underhanded or secretive use.

We are not believe that the bible…any version of it, is inerrant, you see. We are quite free to look for the best one. So far, the KJV works fine.

Why not?

True, Joseph Smith was working on his own translation before he died, but he did not complete it, and the Church of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints) had the copyright for most of it anyway. Besides that, Joseph’s work was considerably more of a study guide than a straight translation/version. So…the KJV.

It’s what we had. It’s good enough. It’s not perfect, but no version of the bible that we have today is.

I find it interesting. The LDS Church claims apostolic authority in the same sense that the Catholic Church does. The Catholic Church has always taken translations of the Bible very seriously. Today lay faithful are no longer forbidden to read Protestant translations, but this was certainly the case in the past, and certainly today only translations approved by the Church may be used liturgically - that is, Catholic translations. Every translation will include subtle (or sometimes less than subtle) biases reflecting the theological views of the translator.
Does your church authorize translations in other languages, or just adopt translations that already exist?

 

[andrewstx]

No, that’s pretty much it. The church concentrated on one because it’s easier to cross reference one, and a lot cheaper to publish with all that cross referencing. There’s no underhanded or secretive use.

We are not believe that the bible…any version of it, is inerrant, you see. We are quite free to look for the best one. So far, the KJV works fine.

Why not?

True, Joseph Smith was working on his own translation before he died, but he did not complete it, and the Church of Christ (formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints) had the copyright for most of it anyway. Besides that, Joseph’s work was considerably more of a study guide than a straight translation/version. So…the KJV.

It’s what we had. It’s good enough. It’s not perfect, but no version of the bible that we have today is.

Is it not true that the KJV was the only English Protestant translation in the early 19th century? True there was the Geneva Bible but that was rare and hard to come by.

What other bible would Mr. Smith use?

Personally I prefer a bible in contemporary English for study, one easy to understand. But I am middle aged and the KJV still was the only Protestant bible in common use at that time. I was excited when Good News for Modern Man came out when I was a teen. But my parents never used anything but the KJV all their lives.

 

[dianaiad]

I find it interesting. The LDS Church claims apostolic authority in the same sense that the Catholic Church does. The Catholic Church has always taken translations of the Bible very seriously. Today lay faithful are no longer forbidden to read Protestant translations, but this was certainly the case in the past, and certainly today only translations approved by the Church may be used liturgically - that is, Catholic translations. Every translation will include subtle (or sometimes less than subtle) biases reflecting the theological views of the translator.
Does your church authorize translations in other languages, or just adopt translations that already exist?

If good translations already exist, we use them. Why reinvent the wheel?

And yes, we claim apostolic authority…it is, after all, either you, us, or nobody for that. For us, the idea is…you go search; the KJV, others, you think about it and you pray about it, and you’ll get the message. If someone ever found the ‘real’ original manuscripts and did a worthy and scholastically rigorous translation of those originals, we’d grab it and be very, very thankful.

The trouble is, we don’t have those originals.
Nobody does.

 

[jadamo]

1. Exaltation requires a perfected body - Many will obtain a body after the resurrection but they will not be exalted. To be exalted one must pass their current test, which for us here means overcoming the natural man and obtaining a perfected body.
2. Spirit is refined matter - Joseph Smith said “All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; we cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter” (D&C 131:7-8). So both physical and spiritual matter is of the same sort, one is just more refined than the other. Further, a resurrected body is a spiritual body (refined matter).
3. The Holy Ghost has not been deprived of a body - Again from Joseph Smith, “The Holy Ghost is yet a spiritual body and is waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did.”[Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon, 1997]

Janderich, this question kinda popped into my mind while reading your explanation, for answer #2, spirit is a purer form of matter but we can’t see it until we are more pure, is that correct? What about satan and other fallen angels? I would assume they are no longer considered pure, but they are still pure enough to see spirit? Is that b/c they are still made of spirit and do not have a body? I’m not sure I understand how this works w/evil spirits.

 

[dianaiad]

Janderich, this question kinda popped into my mind while reading your explanation, for answer #2, spirit is a purer form of matter but we can’t see it until we are more pure, is that correct? What about satan and other fallen angels? I would assume they are no longer considered pure, but they are still pure enough to see spirit? Is that b/c they are still made of spirit and do not have a body? I’m not sure I understand how this works w/evil spirits.

Never having seen one (an evil spirit, that is) I can’t tell you. However…something tells me that this would be more about physics than philosophy.

 

[jadamo]

Never having seen one (an evil spirit, that is) I can’t tell you. However…something tells me that this would be more about physics than philosophy.

I’ve never seen one either, but that was part of his response. He says we can’t see spirit b/c it’s a finer, more pure form of matter. From what I know, satan and the other fallen angels did not receive bodies, so they’re still spirits…but they’re not pure. I don’t know, I guess I’m just confused by what he’s trying to say with reason #2!

Which reminds me, I was also wondering what you (Janderich) meant by “purified” before being able to see spirit. Are we being “purified” while here on earth in our bodies? Is this the same for everyone, no matter which heaven a person goes to? Or are you using “purified” in place of resurrected?

 

[Brandon_Cal]

There seems to be three simultaneous discussions going on here: (1) How LDS solve the apparent paradoxes of the Holy Ghost being a member of the Godhead despite having not yet received a physical body (which is the topic of the OP), (2) Why the LDS almost unanimously refer to the Holy ‘Ghost’ rather than the Holy ‘Spirit’, and (3) How/Why the LDS use the KJV almost exclusively, or at least, exclusively in an official capacity.

In my opinion Dianaiad and Janderich have already answered the first question. The second and third questions are going to require slightly more speculative answers.

As a German and English speaker I see no substantive difference between Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit. As far as I know there is no other way to say “Holy Spirit” in German besides “der Heilige Geist” (literally, “the Holy Ghost”). Having lived in Germany in the past as an active LDS I’ll tell you that German Mormons say “der Heilige Geist”, and while speaking English they typically say “Holy Ghost”. This controversy exists solely in English, and frankly is purely semantic.

I also know a number of Latino Mormon converts who still say “Holy Spirit” without any correction from the Church. It just so happens that the majority of LDS in America are BIC Mormons, whose Mormonism stretches back to the 19th century when I’d wager that almost zero English speakers said “Holy Spirit”. Even the English-Latin Missals provided in the Catholic parishes that offer the EF according to the 1962 rubrics still say “Holy Ghost”, and the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible I own never uses “Holy Spirit”. I believe this is strictly a matter of local custom.

What about the KJV? I’m old enough to remember the days when our local ward library would have dozens of Bible translations. Growing up in the 30s and early 40s it wasn’t uncommon to hear verses from multiple translations since the LDS Church at the time had no official version (I think it was Darby’s Bible that was also quite popular out in the Mountain West). To this very day you can find at least one copy of the Inspired Version by Joseph Smith Jr. care of the RLDS Church in most LDS wards. No doubt though, the KJV was already very popular among English speaking Mormons due mostly to custom and tradition.

It was some time in the 50s that I recall local wards abandoning other versions for the KJV. I believe this was more of a reaction to the advent of more modern translations which were perceived as too theologically liberal, and having abandoned formal equivalence for dynamic equivalence, than an explicit endorsement of the KJV as somehow being “superior” to other pre-1950 versions. This controversy wasn’t isolated to just Mormons circles (after all, KJV-onlyism today isn’t unique to Mormons).

Mind you, the Church wouldn’t publish its own edition of the KJV (with footnotes and a topical index) until the late 70s, and still wouldn’t make that edition the official edition and version for the entirety of the English speaking church until the early 90s!

 

[kimg901]

Wait.

What?

It’s the King James Version. The same King James Version everybody else who uses the King James Version uses.

there is no “Mormon” version of the KJV.

There IS a study guide and some great cross referencing,but those are separate. The KJV is still the KJV right down to the goofs in it, like the Johanine comma.

I was curious because a year ago in RCIA a Mormon family was trying to find a verse that was brought up and they couldn’t find it. When I asked to see their bible it said “King James Bible, Mormon Edition” And after reading a lot of it I could see the differences in it from the KJV. Words were added or taken from it (sentences). I thought it was odd.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I was curious because a year ago in RCIA a Mormon family was trying to find a verse that was brought up and they couldn’t find it. When I asked to see their bible it said “King James Bible, Mormon Edition” And after reading a lot of it I could see the differences in it from the KJV. Words were added or taken from it (sentences). I thought it was odd.

Are you sure you weren’t confusing the Joseph Smith Translation for the KJV LDS Edition? The LDS Edition of the Bible has the complete, unadulterated KJV, less the Deuterocanon. The only additions to it are footnotes, chapter prologues (which are in italics and cannot be confused as part of the body of the text), an index, a topical guide, and various maps in the back. I don’t know of a single example of text being removed.

 

[LivingWaters7]

If good translations already exist, we use them. Why reinvent the wheel?

And yes, we claim apostolic authority…it is, after all, either you, us, or nobody for that.

I’m always amused when LDS make this claim (usually citing some unnamed Catholic minister that said it’s either Catholics or Mormons). No, it isn’t either Catholics, Mormons, or nobody. There are various other churches that claim apostolic authority, and/or being the “one true church”. The Orthodox Church claims apostolic authority (and the Catholic Church recognizes said authority as valid), as well as the Oriental Orthodox Churches, other ancient churches (I don’t believe the Church of the East is Oriental Orthodox, could be wrong). Then you have the various restorationist churches, not just the LDS (and the various Joseph Smith derived churches), but then you have the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Seventh-day Adventists (claiming to be the “remnant church”), etc.

My point is just that this simplistic look at apostolic authority is illogical, ignores the reality of the situation, and it never made sense to me.