J
Javy
Guest
They also use the term Holy Ghost in their book of mormon.
- Status
F
flameburns623
Guest
Some traditionalist Anglicans also favor the term ‘Holy Ghost’ for reasons I am unsure of. However in the LDS Church I think there is a distinction between the ‘Holy Ghost’ and the ‘Holy Spirit’. I could be mistaken about this and perhaps Zerinus will clarify one way or the other?
C
christianley
Guest
I was a Mormon for 30 years and I don’t remember any difference between the two. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t one, but I seem to remember them being used interchangeably.
Z
zerinus
Guest
There isn’t any difference. Some authors in the past have tried to make a distinction; but in reality there isn’t.
zerinus
C
colliric
Guest
Once again it is because of the KJV that Anglicans generally use “Ghost” instead of Spirit. Most of their Hymnals were composed in the days when the KJV was the main bible in usage, and in order to keep the relevance and meaning of the still popular old hymnals clear, they still use archaic names, which they understand were understood differently in those days like “Holy Ghost” and “Jehovah”(although that has fallen, their hymnals still include the name) and “Lucifer”.
The understanding is the same, just one term is an arcaic version indicating both the spirit itself and the manifestation and work of the Holy Spirit by using the word “Ghost”, which by definition means “Manifesting spirit”. The term needed to be changed because of the modern occultisms connitations slighty changing the perception of the definition of that word to “Physically manifesting spirit”
F
flameburns623
Guest
So far as I can determine, the KJV used both the terms “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit”. I did find one article on the topic, here, which helps explain a little bit:
adishakti.org/_/holy_spirit_or_holy_ghost.htm
What is puzzling is that some Anglicans I have known get very testy with those who refer to the Third Person of the Trinity as the “Holy Spirit” as opposed to the “Holy Ghost”. For these individuals, the terms obviously are NOT interchangeable, but I have not yet quite caught on to why they feel this way.
I seem to be correct, BTW, that Mormons have made some sort of distinction between the “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” as well. I find the following:
mormonchallenge.com:
From the following website:
mormonchallenge.com/ref_compare.htm
Please note that while my source is an anti-Mormon source, I have found not just one but numerous references to this concept. Now Zerinus has indicated that this distinction no longer holds as a hard-and-fast rule so perhaps this has been changed in some way or perhaps Zerinus is simply not aware of this facet of LDS doctrine. Or perhaps anti-Mormons have unintentionally or otherwise gotten this teaching wrong. I cited the source I did because it gave some references which might seem to bolster the claim that Mormons distinguish between the two terms. Is anyone able to tender further clarification?
C
colliric
Guest
No, this is a slight but underrstandable misconception, the Holy Ghost in the KJV refers to a manifesting spirit. It is therefore also known as the “Holy Spirit”, but it is refering to the personage I.e it’s role in the trinity(Although mormons don’t believe that, they do believe this is god’s spirit) as the helper who remains here, it is a term kind of saying “the holy spirit who is here”.
High Church Anglicans understand this and use it interchangeably sometimes saying ghost, Othertimes spirit. Mormons likewise. In it’s role as the helper they describe it by using the term Ghost to allow better understanding of it’s personage role, but they also call it the holy spirit on occasion when it is being referred to only as God’s spirit. When it’s here doing it’s role and manifesting itself, they use ghost, but in describing it they say “the holy spirit of god”. That’s why they use both terms in that “jacob” passage.
When it is not mentioned in terms of the trinity personage(I.e to describe it’s work as the helper) it is referred to as “the holy spirit”, in terms of it being the spirit of god. However the term “Spirit” is rarely used in the KJV, and is only used to specifically describe God’s spirit itself, not it’s role as the helper, and only when it’s specifically a term saying “the spirit of god” like in the first chapter of Genesis.
See the official doctrines:
scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/h/97
Notice one of the doctrines says “Holy Spirit”.
The reason why some Anglicans are anal about it is because they believe the correct translation is still “Ghost”(and most of these people were brought up on their Anglican hymnals and the KJV which embrace the word Ghost), because a Spirit is not necessarily a Manifesting spirit, where as ghost still does mean Manifesting/living Spirit, but it has taken on horror connotations which these people are able to look through.
Z
zerinus
Guest
There is nothing “archaic” about the word “ghost”. It is a commonly used word in modern English. Have you seen any “ghosts” lately? Didn’t you watch the “Ghost” Busters movie?
zerinus
Z
zerinus
Guest
I will tell you where the confusion lies. In LDS theology, there is a distinction between the “personage of Spirit” that comprises the third member of the Godhead (D&C 130:22); and that “Spirit” that “proceeds from the presence of God” and “fills the immensity of space,” also called the “light of Christ,” as described in D&C 88:7-13. In order to make some kind of verbal distinction between these two, some LDS authors in the past have tried to use the term “Holy Ghost” for the former, and “Holy Spirit” for the latter. But that distinction is purely arbitrary, and has no basis in LDS scripture, ancient or modern. In scripture the two terms are used interchangeably. Those three scriptural references that you had given from that website do not show such a distinction, as the website had incorrectly implied.
zerinus
K
kellie
Guest
Why would LDS theology make a distinction if there is none within LDS scripture?
Z
zerinus
Guest
There is a distinction in LDS scripture in the theology, but not in the terminology.
zerinus
C
colliric
Guest
Yes this is exactly why the term is no longer used to describe a “manifesting spirit”, it has become “Physically Manifesting Spirit” thanks to it’s usage to describe horrific apparitions of spirits…
That is why it’s specific usage in the name “Holy Ghost” is archaic, because the holy spirit does not manifest in front of us visually, it manifests spiritually. Nevertheless if one understands the old meanings and contexts of the word, one can choose to call the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost, as the old meaning interestingly describes the Holy Spirit’s role as a manifesting/helping spirit.
Back in the time the KJV was translated it did not have such a specific meaning(Physical manifestation of spirit), but it now does. It’s meaning was slightly changed. Back in the day they used the term “gave up the ghost” instead of “breathed his last breath”, The modern understanding of Ghost does not allow that preceeding saying to make sense anymore(Unless we all have Ghost pets who die at the same time as us!). But it did under the old english meaning of what exactly a Ghost is… a spirtually and/or physically manifesting spirit. We all have our own Ghost( Working/Living spirit) within us in old english. Unlike it’s modern meaning which is only “Physically manifesting spirit”.
Z
zerinus
Guest
“Holy Ghost” isn’t archaic either. We use it all the time, and so do a lot of other Christians I know. Everybody knows that Holy Ghost is another name for Hoy Spirit. I don’t know what you are talking about.
zerinus
F
flameburns623
Guest
I think Zerinus explained that:
In LDS theology, there is a distinction between the “personage of Spirit” that comprises the third member of the Godhead (D&C 130:22); and that “Spirit” that “proceeds from the presence of God” and “fills the immensity of space,” also called the “light of Christ,” as described in D&C 88:7-13. In order to make some kind of verbal distinction between these two, some LDS authors in the past have tried to use the term “Holy Ghost” for the former, and “Holy Spirit” for the latter. But that distinction is purely arbitrary
(Bolded and/or underlined passages are mine)
In case this still isn’t clear: LDS theology, apparently on the basis of LDS Scripture, has deduced a distinction between the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost as a member of the Godhead–which has a personal identity; and the Spirit of God/Light of Christ which is NOT a Person but a way of speaking about how God’s illuminating power fills the Universe. There are similar distinctions, by the way, in mainstream Christian theology. (“Wisdom” for example is sometimes personified and sometimes even seen as an analogy for Christ Himself).
The problem for LDS theologians, apparently, is that there was no simple way to distinguish these two things. Remember that in all theology as well as in philosophical discourse, words are tools, and one sometimes must improvise those tools in order to accomplish one’s goal, which is to communicate ideas. Some LDS in the past apparently used the terms “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” to make the distinctions they needed to make. They did this even though in LDS Scriptures themselves, the two terms are used interchangeably. This is a perfectly valid thing to do, though is can lead to confusion; the possibility of confusion has apparently led LDS theologians to use a different way to make the same point.
At least that is what I deduce from Zerinus’ response. He can correct me if I still haven’t got the facts quite straight . . .
F
flameburns623
Guest
Zerinus: if you read the article I linked to earlier about this issue, you would understand that in the 17th century, it was more common to speak of the beings who cause ‘hauntings’ as ‘spirits’; the term ‘ghost’ in those times was used rather differently. Nowadays, we would actually reverse the way we use the words “ghost” and “spirit” from the way those words were used during the time the KJV was translated. Strictly speaking, it is not that either of the words themselves are archaic, but that the usage of them–as it appears in the KJV–would be somewhat archaic. Hope that helps a little. Thanks for your clarification on the LDS and the Ghost/Spirit issue, by the way!
K
kell0618
Guest
Who wouldn’t want to be Mormon? Afterall, they believe that **Men and God are of the same nature or species.
Other odd inventions:
****The Heavenly Father has a Heavenly Father before Him.
****God needs a wife to become God.
****There are things that the Father did not create.
****Jesus and Lucifer are spirit-brothers.
****The Son should not receive the same worship as the Father.
****God curses certain individuals with dark skin.
****Christ did not die for all sins.
****Baptism for the dead is required.
****Jesus has not always been God.
****Human beings may become Gods for other worlds as God is God for this world.
****There are many Gods for other worlds, and each God is equal to the God of this world in terms of His nature.
****The LDS Church is the only true church.
And the history of the LDS church? Invented in by Joseph Smith in the early 1800s.
The History of Catholicism? Founded by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and inventor of LIFE, a couple of thousand years ago.
**Speaking the truth,
Kelly****
**
**
Other odd inventions:
****The Heavenly Father has a Heavenly Father before Him.
****God needs a wife to become God.
****There are things that the Father did not create.
****Jesus and Lucifer are spirit-brothers.
****The Son should not receive the same worship as the Father.
****God curses certain individuals with dark skin.
****Christ did not die for all sins.
****Baptism for the dead is required.
****Jesus has not always been God.
****Human beings may become Gods for other worlds as God is God for this world.
****There are many Gods for other worlds, and each God is equal to the God of this world in terms of His nature.
****The LDS Church is the only true church.
And the history of the LDS church? Invented in by Joseph Smith in the early 1800s.
The History of Catholicism? Founded by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and inventor of LIFE, a couple of thousand years ago.
**Speaking the truth,
Kelly****
**
**
A
Allweather
Guest
Hi kelly. You forgot one: They teach that men can have many wives, and that the wives are to be obedient and hard working, and aren’t to complain about their husbands sleeping with other women.Who wouldn’t want to be Mormon? Afterall, they believe that Men and God are of the same nature or species.
Z
zerinus
Guest
L
Lurker
Guest
I’m going to say that her story about the Mormons helping out actually seems true. I know a friend who was actually helped out considerably by a local mormon church when he lost his job. Apparently one of his other friends who is a mormon asked for help and the church stepped forward. The guy they helped is an atheist, but he was highly impressed with the mormon’s willingness to help him.
In addition, growing up, my next door neighbors were mormon. They were always incredibly kind and just great examples of charity.
One thing that has always impressed me about mormonism is their dedication to family and charity. A lot of churches could learn from their example in this regard.
J
JonathanKinsman
Guest
Excellent post ,Kelly! God bless you!Who wouldn’t
want to be Mormon? Afterall, they believe that **Men and God are of the same nature or species.
Other odd inventions:
The Heavenly Father has a Heavenly Father before Him.
God needs a wife to become God.
There are things that the Father did not create.
Jesus and Lucifer are spirit-brothers.
The Son should not receive the same worship as the Father.
God curses certain individuals with dark skin.
Christ did not die for all sins.
Baptism for the dead is required.
Jesus has not always been God.
Human beings may become Gods for other worlds as God is God for this world.
There are many Gods for other worlds, and each God is equal to the God of this world in terms of His nature.
The LDS Church is the only true church.
And the history of the LDS church? Invented in by Joseph Smith in the early 1800s.
The History of Catholicism? Founded by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and inventor of LIFE, a couple of thousand years ago.
Speaking the truth,
Kelly
Pantheology (Mormonism) trumps charitable acts (giving food to non-Mormons) any day.
It’s their goofy, non-Christian belief system that is the Great Wall in front of their glazed eyes.
With declining numbers (look at all the ex-Mormons on this Forum!) the Mormons better start reaching out to non-Mormons, it’s in their best interest (self survival as a sect) to do so.
This is recent. As of the 80s it was decided by church leadership to adapt their “missionary” approach through ‘good works’ in the community (including letting non-Mormon basketball teams join their ward leagues) and non-Mormons boys join their stake sponsored Boy Scout troops and Cub Scout packs. Been there, done that.
Pax Christi
- Status