Will the Holy Ghost get a body?

[statman]

This has something to do with trying to reconcile BY's Adam-God doctrine with contemporary doctrine, doesn't it? It's reminding me of another conversation we had. What are you thinking about? Come on.... out with it.

That's my personal theory about the HG.

It's about the only way I can make ANY sense of the BY quotes about Adam. If you accept the proposition that Adam = HG, the BY quotes actually do kind of make sense.

A few reasons why it could be possible - Adam and his family were ministered to directly by God and other Heavenly messengers. They would not be in need of the influence of the HG to testify of such things because they actualyl saw the real-deal face-to-face.

There is one scripture that you have to justify if you want to believe this to be possible: Moses 6: 64-66

64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.
65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.
66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with afire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever;

I had a missionary companion that pretty much freaked-out when he heard about some of the things BY said - and the Adam/God stuff was the most difficult for him to accept. We spent about a week researching possible scriptural explanations for various things BY said. The explanation that perhaps Adam = HG was sufficient to let him keep his testimony...

[Rosebud]

That's my personal theory about the HG.

It's about the only way I can make ANY sense of the BY quotes about Adam. If you accept the proposition that Adam = HG, the BY quotes actually do kind of make sense.

A few reasons why it could be possible - Adam and his family were ministered to directly by God and other Heavenly messengers. They would not be in need of the influence of the HG to testify of such things because they actualyl saw the real-deal face-to-face.

There is one scripture that you have to justify if you want to believe this to be possible: Moses 6: 64-66

64 And it came to pass, when the Lord had spoken with Adam, our father, that Adam cried unto the Lord, and he was caught away by the Spirit of the Lord, and was carried down into the water, and was laid under the water, and was brought forth out of the water.
65 And thus he was baptized, and the Spirit of God descended upon him, and thus he was born of the Spirit, and became quickened in the inner man.
66 And he heard a voice out of heaven, saying: Thou art baptized with afire, and with the Holy Ghost. This is the record of the Father, and the Son, from henceforth and forever;

I had a missionary companion that pretty much freaked-out when he heard about some of the things BY said - and the Adam/God stuff was the most difficult for him to accept. We spent about a week researching possible scriptural explanations for various things BY said. The explanation that perhaps Adam = HG was sufficient to let him keep his testimony...

Thanks for answering. I'm not sure I really have a direct response to your idea right now. I'm kind of stuck at thinking that the most controversial parts of the Adam-God theory are simply irreconcilable with current doctrine. Making them work takes a lot of twisting. They're so controversial, in fact, that I'm almost scared to post them on CUF -- so strange. Do you want to do the honors?

[LA Ute]

Thanks for answering. I'm not sure I really have a direct response to your idea right now. I'm kind of stuck at thinking that the most controversial parts of the Adam-God theory are simply irreconcilable with current doctrine. Making them work takes a lot of twisting. They're so controversial, in fact, that I'm almost scared to post them on CUF -- so strange. Do you want to do the honors?

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

--Spencer W. Kimball, October 1976 General Conference

A summary of the various apologetics is also here.

[Rosebud]

We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.

--Spencer W. Kimball, October 1976 General Conference

A summary of the various apologetics is also here.

Hmmm...... does this mean that you're not going to share controversial quotes here? We've talked about polygamy and polyandry. We can talk about those because they haven't been denounced?

[UtahDan]

It's about the only way I can make ANY sense of the BY quotes about Adam.

That is a fool's errand you are on there.

[mUUser]

Of course he will. Absolutely no question about it.

Guess we should start thinking about some new nicknames then.

[wuapinmon]

Solon,

Here is another one ... This one from the gospel of Philip (I think this is still a 2nd century text):



So at least some parts (although maybe just a minority and maybe mostly gnostic groups) seem to view the Holy Spirit as female.

pelagius,

Do you count the Gnostics (recognizing that this is 1,00 different sects) as Christians?

[pelagius]

pelagius,

Do you count the Gnostics (recognizing that this is 1,00 different sects) as Christians?

Well, obviously there are gnostic groups that clearly aren't Christians ... Do I consider the gnostics that produced things like the Gospel of Philip as Christians? Sure

[wuapinmon]

Well, obviously there are gnostic groups that clearly aren't Christians ... Do I consider the gnostics that produced things like the Gospel of Philip as Christians? Sure

All my books and articles are at work. Something in the back of my mind is rattling around making me think that there's something in the Nag Hammadi discoveries that talks about Heavenly Mother having a body. I won't have time to really look for it tomorrow since I have my reggae class tomorrow night, but I'll try and find it on Friday.

It struck me as different that you consider some Gnostics Christian; the majority of history has cast them out of the tent. I guess that changed, for the better, at Messina in 1966.

[il Padrino Ute]

Guess we should start thinking about some new nicknames then.

My suggestion for a new nickname is Skip.

Recite the 1st Article of Faith using Skip instead of "the Holy Ghost". It sounds pretty good, no?

[Solon]

All my books and articles are at work. Something in the back of my mind is rattling around making me think that there's something in the Nag Hammadi discoveries that talks about Heavenly Mother having a body. I won't have time to really look for it tomorrow since I have my reggae class tomorrow night, but I'll try and find it on Friday.

It struck me as different that you consider some Gnostics Christian; the majority of history has cast them out of the tent. I guess that changed, for the better, at Messina in 1966.

Some Gnostics are as "christian" as Mormons - at least from a Nicene point-of-view.

There are also the "neo-gnostic" sects like the Bogomils or the Cathars. We'll have to chat sometime about the Cathars and their dualism - maybe there's Zoroastrian influence going on. The Cathars had some pretty interesting rituals along the lines of "mystery" religions (like the LDS temple). Plus, they were guardians of the Holy Grail

[wuapinmon]

Well, obviously there are gnostic groups that clearly aren't Christians ... Do I consider the gnostics that produced things like the Gospel of Philip as Christians? Sure

I forgot that wuapinmon IV had a dentist appointment this morning, so I got to work an hour early. I thought I had a better copy of the Nag Hammadi Library, I've just got James Robinson's edition, and it doesn't have an index (grrrrr). Anyway, I got to looking and I found the Gospel of the Egyptians (III, 2 and IV, 2), aka, The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit. This is the Bohlig & Wisse translation:

The holy book of the Egyptians about the great invisible Spirit, the Father whose name cannot be uttered, he who came forth from the heights of the perfection, the light of the light of the aeons of light, the light of the silence of the providence <and> the Father of the silence, the light of the word and the truth, the light of the incorruptions, the infinite light, the radiance from the aeons of light of the unrevealable, unmarked, ageless, unproclaimable Father, the aeon of the aeons, Autogenes, self-begotten, self-producing, alien, the really true aeon.

Three powers came forth from him; they are the Father, the Mother, (and) the Son, from the living silence, what came forth from the incorruptible Father. These came forth from the silence of the unknown Father.

And from that place, Domedon Doxomedon came forth, the aeon of the aeons and the light of each one of their powers. And thus the Son came forth fourth; the Mother fifth; the Father sixth. He was [...] but unheralded; it is he who is unmarked among all the powers, the glories, and the incorruptions.

From that place, the three powers came forth, the three ogdoads that the Father brings forth in silence with his providence, from his bosom, i.e., the Father, the Mother, (and) the Son.

The <first> ogdoad, because of which the thrice-male child came forth, which is the thought, and the word, and the incorruption, and the eternal life, the will, the mind, and the foreknowledge, the androgynous Father.

The second ogdoad-power, the Mother, the virginal Barbelon, epititioch[...]ai, memeneaimen[...], who presides over the heaven, karb[...], the uninterpretable power, the ineffable Mother. She originated from herself [...]; she came forth; she agreed with the Father of the silent silence.

The third ogdoad-power, the Son of the silent silence, and the crown of the silent silence, and the glory of the Father, and the virtue of the Mother, he brings forth from the bosom the seven powers of the great light of the seven voices. And the word is their completion.

These are the three powers, the three ogdoads that the Father, through his providence, brought forth from his bosom. He brought them forth at that place.

It's a fascinating read, if anyone's interested in the whole thing.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/goseqypt.html

Who knows where the world might've been had Alexandria triumphed over Rome.

[LA Ute]

Hmmm...... does this mean that you're not going to share controversial quotes here? We've talked about polygamy and polyandry. We can talk about those because they haven't been denounced?

I was just trying to help. To the extent you were saying that BY's statements about Adam-God are "scary," I wanted to make it clear (for those who didn't already know, and I am sure you did) that whatever LDS doctrine is, it doesn't include Adam-God. So I don't think there's much there that is scary, or should be.

I also am not very big on mining the JD for controversial quotes - by BY or anyone else. That's what anti-Mormons do. But that's a different discussion.

[wuapinmon]

These other Nag Hammadi texts make for interesting reads:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/adam.html

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/letpet.html (you can see the Gnostic belief in a docetic Christ in the language used)

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/origin.html

Solon, this one's for you:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/plato.html

[Rosebud]

April DeConick, a scholar of gnosticism (Rice University), is writing a book about the trinity and making arguments about the issue more generally:


It will be interesting to see how convincing her evidence is ... I remain skeptical that she can push convincingly as far as what she suggests in the preceding blurp ... but I am looking forward to the book.

Sounds interesting. Will you start a thread on it after you read it? Based on the little I just read online, DeConick is criticized for trying to read too much into too little information and for making specious arguments to support her conclusions. Makes sense that you're skeptical, I guess. It's too bad.... I liked her blurp. Please let me know what you think. I know I won't get to the book.