question about 3 Nephi 9

[skylark1]

Is it demanding to "hold" an unchangeable God to His own word? (I know that sounds bad, but I don't know how else to say it).

I'm not sure that I am following your question. Did God say that he will only do things a certain way? A similar question came up on a different thread in which the question of temple ceremonies/ordinances were changed (When you have time to post your comments there, I will be interested to read it.) From the responses both here and there, I think that I am in the minority in thinking that it is ok for God to change the way that he does things as long as it doesn't change his purposes or go against his will. We don't always know why. I know that the testimonies that I have heard of how people came to know that God is real and the Jesus is the Messiah are each so unique, that it doesn't surprise me to think of there being variances in how people are given the gift of the Holy Spirit/Ghost.

I will risk looking like a fool and say that I don't understand that they (in this instance) received the baptism of fire, as we have agreed to classify it. I know that the text clearly says "gift of the Holy Ghost." But in my understanding, the gift of the Holy Ghost, as a permanent, ongoing companion, has only been promised to those who submit to baptism.

Please understand that I have no interest in splitting hairs here, nor in putting some kind of limit on God's power. I know that He has all power to do whatsoever He will. But I also know that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that He operates by covenant, and that he does not vary from that which he hath said. To bestow the full gift of the Holy Ghost upon someone who had not fulfilled the covenant would, in my mind, negate the necessity of baptism outright. Why would one then need to be baptized, if the gift promised upon submission to the sacrament had already been given?

Maybe as an outward expression and declaration to the world of an inward change and identification with Christ?

Why do you think that one is baptized?

Yes. I believe they received a manifestation of the Holy Ghost. I do not believe they received the full Gift of the Holy Ghost. The former is given temporarily, even though the influence may tarry for days at a time. But if the person does not act upon the influence—if the person acts contrary to what the Spirit has witnessed to him or her, the Holy Ghost necessarily departs. That is what the Gift of the Holy Ghost is all about. Never losing that companionship, barring unworthiness brought upon oneself through persistent sin. Admittedly, it is the Restored Gospel that compels me to draw a deeper line than you may be inclined to draw here. I am OK with that. It is what it is.

It sounds like you view both the story in Helaman 5 and in Acts 8 as similar experiences, in that you see them both as manifestations of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost, not the gift of the Holy Ghost.

I realize that LDS make a distinction between a manifestation of the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, with the greatest distinction between the two being the idea that with the gift of the Holy Ghost comes the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. But if the Holy Ghost leaves if one is unworthy due to sin, is that really so different from a manifestation of the Holy Ghost in which He leaves due to someone not acting upon His influence?

Your thoughts?

I'm still trying to figure out whether or not there is a second experience in which one is empowered with special graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit. I've read some articles or commentaries that present a good argument for this.

I don't know that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit will leave if one does not act on them. I tend to think that God pursues us with an unswerving relentless love. I don't think that He would give up on us easily. But when we ignore His voice and go our own way, it might be harder for us to hear Him. And if we abide in Him, He isn't going to leave us.

 

[Rescued One]

I'm not sure that I am following your question. Did God say that he will only do things a certain way? A similar question came up on a different thread in which the question of temple ceremonies/ordinances were changed (When you have time to post your comments there, I will be interested to read it.) From the responses both here and there, I think that I am in the minority in thinking that it is ok for God to change the way that he does things as long as it doesn't change his purposes or go against his will. We don't always know why. I know that the testimonies that I have heard of how people came to know that God is real and the Jesus is the Messiah are each so unique, that it doesn't surprise me to think of there being variances in how people are given the gift of the Holy Spirit/Ghost.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost must be given by the laying on of hands of one who has authority. It is for church members only. And this is always done following baptism.

All members of the Church are enjoined at their confirmation to “receive the Holy Ghost.” Those who receive Him become Saints; those who do not are halted in their progression toward the kingdom of God. “We have a great many members of this Church who have never received a manifestation through the Holy Ghost. Why? Because they have not made their lives conform to the truth” (Joseph Fielding Smith, We Are Here to Be Tried, Tested, Proved, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [25 Oct. 1961], 4; see also Church News, 4 Nov. 1961, 14). . .


B. The gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed on all who have covenanted with Jesus Christ in baptism.

1. The gift of the Holy Ghost is given by the laying on of hands by those who have the proper authority (see Acts 8:12–25; Moroni 2:1–3; Articles of Faith 1:4).

2. The Holy Ghost can lead us to all truth (see John 14:15–17; Moroni 10:5).

3. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to His companionship when the individual is worthy (see D&C 121:45–46).

4. The Holy Ghost cleanses us from sin and is likened unto fire (see Matthew 3:11; 2 Nephi 31:17; D&C 19:31).

Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Chapter 16
ldsces

 

[skylark1]

The Gift of the Holy Ghost must be given by the laying on of hands of one who has authority. It is for church members only. And this is always done following baptism.

All members of the Church are enjoined at their confirmation to “receive the Holy Ghost.” Those who receive Him become Saints; those who do not are halted in their progression toward the kingdom of God. “We have a great many members of this Church who have never received a manifestation through the Holy Ghost. Why? Because they have not made their lives conform to the truth” (Joseph Fielding Smith, We Are Here to Be Tried, Tested, Proved, Brigham Young University Speeches of the Year [25 Oct. 1961], 4; see also Church News, 4 Nov. 1961, 14). . .


B. The gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed on all who have covenanted with Jesus Christ in baptism.

1. The gift of the Holy Ghost is given by the laying on of hands by those who have the proper authority (see Acts 8:12–25; Moroni 2:1–3; Articles of Faith 1:4).

2. The Holy Ghost can lead us to all truth (see John 14:15–17; Moroni 10:5).

3. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to His companionship when the individual is worthy (see D&C 121:45–46).

4. The Holy Ghost cleanses us from sin and is likened unto fire (see Matthew 3:11; 2 Nephi 31:17; D&C 19:31).

Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Chapter 16
ldsces

I've read all of this before, but it really isn't what I was asking about in my post that you quoted.

 

[BarryK]

also jumping into the discussion, being a Spirit Filled, Toungs speaking, Miricle Working, Streetcorner Preaching,Guitar Banging ,Joyfully Worshiping, Bible Teaching, "Post Pentecostal" I see it a bit differently

While it is true that nobody knows for sure the mind of The Father, it has been my personal experence that the "baptisism of Fire" is the infulling of The holy Spirit, and the evidence of various outward manifestations ( toungs being the most common) Keep in mine I used the word "evidence", and there is a reason for that.

Suppose some twisted derranged evil person were to kidnap a close friend of yours, burder them, dissamebe the body into 50 different pieces, incenerate each piece,scatter the ashes each in a different state, acid wash the various paraphenilla the fiend used, and destroy eery shred of anything that might even be considered incrimination, your friend will still be just as dead, but no "evidence"

now, putting aside that rather extreme illustration, just because there is no outward "evidence" that in no way means that the Baptisism of the Holy Spirit has not taken place.

Dont forget what the word "Baptise" actually means

βαπτίζω, (baptiz&#333 Strongs # g-907
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

Consider this, when one is repeatedly dipped, imersed and sumerged, clensed and washed and overwhelomed with The Holy Spirit, what would the effect of that be on somebody?

What has the Word of God to say concerning a "refiners fire" and "fullers soap"

Remember that The Holy Spirit showed up as fire in the upper room.

There is also a sceondayr definition found in greek textx outside of the Bible, a cookbood specificly, it uses the word Baptizo, as a way to descrive brining of pickles.
When you take a cuke, and imerse it in the brinek it takes on ther character of the brine.

How much more whe we are soaked, imersed, set afire by TheHoly Spirit, we tak on the Charachter of he that peremiates us
after allwe are made in His image

I am in no way making excuse for the well known "Penticostal excess" that is rampant in the EKKLESIA today, after all God is a God of order, not emotional chaos, but whe the Holy Spirit decides to show up it is best that we do not grive Him.

The Baptisism of Water, the one you get to do when you make your intital commitment to Christ is important as well, it is a public declearation, and it is a symbolic( and much more than merely symbolic just the same) demonstation of you association with Christ in both His death, and His ressurection.
It is also an act of Obiedence
it is also an act of boldness for the Gospel of Christ.
(if you dont believe me about thei Boldness thing, take whater monies that you have availabe, get on Islamic soil, and get yourself publicly re-baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ, and wait and see what happens)

anyway, that my two cents

I seem to have strayed from my own point (go figgure)

I can not understande how one can be Baptised, imsered, repeatedly dipped, pickeled, submerbed, overwhemled washed clean and set ablaze by The Holy Spirit, GOD HIMSELF and not know it

 

[bbbbbbb]

I seem to have strayed from my own point (go figgure)

I can not understande how one can be Baptised, imsered, repeatedly dipped, pickeled, submerbed, overwhemled washed clean and set ablaze by The Holy Spirit, GOD HIMSELF and not know it

Barry, Barry, please calm down. It is really all quite simple if you use the rationale I gave earlier in this thread. They were all drunk as skunks and remained so for a really long time. If they weren't, then there is a problem.

 

[skylark1]

Barry, Barry, please calm down. It is really all quite simple if you use the rationale I gave earlier in this thread. They were all drunk as skunks and remained so for a really long time. If they weren't, then there is a problem.

If the BoM is not true, then it is just a story. If that is the case then whatever happens in the story is up to the author of the story. And the author gives no indication that they were drunk.

If the BoM were true, then your post reminds me of those who mocked the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

"Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine."​

Yes, I know that the circumstances are very different, and that the apostles understood what was happening since Jesus had instructed them. But both tell of a group of people receiving the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost with a visual evidence of fire.

I doubt that mocking accomplishes much, other than laughing at the expense of others. That isn't why I started the thread.

 

[xenic101]

3 Nephi 9:20

20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

How can one be baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost and not know it?

How could this happen and one be unaware of it?

It wasn't that they weren't aware so much as they didn't listen and fell back into wickedness. They had beleived, been baptised, received the Holy Ghost, then ignored it's promtings. (they knew it not) Whether they ignored the promptings because they chose to, or because they didn't fully understand them, the text does not say.

I can look back on my life and see many many instances the Holy Ghost was with me, despite my not having his companionship at the time. At the time, it never occured to me why I decided or did what I did, but looking back, I can see the path I was being directed to, though I didn't know it at the time.

I do understand that the Holy Spirit often works in people's lives before they understand or believe. Do LDS teach that one must have faith and understanding of Christ and the gospel in order to receive the baptism of fire (gift of the Holy Ghost), or only faith?

The Lord has laid out the pattern, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost...

While someone can certainly receive a prompting or witness from the Holy Ghost before baptism, they can not receive the constant companionship of it before then. The Holy Ghost manifests all the time to people of all degrees of righteousness, baptized or not. Usually with a simple urging, though sometime with a much 'louder' voice.

I realize that LDS make a distinction between a manifestation of the Holy Ghost and the Gift of the Holy Ghost, with the greatest distinction between the two being the idea that with the gift of the Holy Ghost comes the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. But if the Holy Ghost leaves if one is unworthy due to sin, is that really so different from a manifestation of the Holy Ghost in which He leaves due to someone not acting upon His influence?

I'm not sure the Holy Ghost actually 'leaves' someone who's had it confirmed on them, because of sin or not listening to the promptings, I do know that the more someone doesn't listen, then the harder it becomes to hear. But the Holy Ghost is still there waiting for them to listen.

It's like a friend, who once conferred on you, is always there, ready to guide and help you. As opposed to a friend who periodically shows up to help.

I'm still trying to figure out whether or not there is a second experience in which one is empowered with special graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit. I've read some articles or commentaries that present a good argument for this.

The typical 'ideal' pattern would be: a testimony of the truth delivered by the Holy Ghost, baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost. Baptism always comes before the confirmation of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost certainly does continue to act to strengthen one's testimony continually, so the testimony may not be fully realized before hand, and will certainly (if one listens)continue to grow afterwards.

I don't know that the manifestations of the Holy Spirit will leave if one does not act on them. I tend to think that God pursues us with an unswerving relentless love. I don't think that He would give up on us easily. But when we ignore His voice and go our own way, it might be harder for us to hear Him. And if we abide in Him, He isn't going to leave us.

Leaves, comes back, leaves, comes back...but otherwise, exactly!

 

[skylark1]

It wasn't that they weren't aware so much as they didn't listen and fell back into wickedness. They had beleived, been baptised, received the Holy Ghost, then ignored it's promtings. (they knew it not) Whether they ignored the promptings because they chose to, or because they didn't fully understand them, the text does not say.

I am very confident that you are much more familiar with the BoM than I am. However, I wonder if that is the explanation since the heading at Helaman 15 includes the following: "Converted Lamanites are firm and steadfast in the faith." That sounds to me like at least for some time that they were steadfast in their faith, and would have known it.

The Lord has laid out the pattern, repentance, baptism, gift of the Holy Ghost...

While someone can certainly receive a prompting or witness from the Holy Ghost before baptism, they can not receive the constant companionship of it before then. The Holy Ghost manifests all the time to people of all degrees of righteousness, baptized or not. Usually with a simple urging, though sometime with a much 'louder' voice.

I wasn't really asking about baptism, but if understanding is a considered a necessary prerequisite to receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. It would be easy for this thread to get sidetracked discusisng baptism, but I want to focus on th idea of "knowing it not" and understanding.

Your thoughts?

I'm still trying to figure out whether or not there is a second experience in which one is empowered with special graces and gifts of the Holy Spirit. I've read some articles or commentaries that present a good argument for this.

The typical 'ideal' pattern would be: a testimony of the truth delivered by the Holy Ghost, baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost. Baptism always comes before the confirmation of the Holy Ghost. The Holy Ghost certainly does continue to act to strengthen one's testimony continually, so the testimony may not be fully realized before hand, and will certainly (if one listens)continue to grow afterwards.

I probably didn't word my post that you quoted very clearly. I don't know if you thought that I was asking for they LDS view when I said that I was still trying to figure this out, but mostly I was trying to answer SoftSpoken asking for my thoughts. An earlier post (post #19) of mine contained a quote that listed four options. But I appreciate you sharing your view and your thoughts!

 

[bbbbbbb]

If the BoM is not true, then it is just a story. If that is the case then whatever happens in the story is up to the author of the story. And the author gives no indication that they were drunk.

If the BoM were true, then your post reminds me of those who mocked the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

"Some, however, made fun of them and said, "They have had too much wine."​

Yes, I know that the circumstances are very different, and that the apostles understood what was happening since Jesus had instructed them. But both tell of a group of people receiving the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost with a visual evidence of fire.

I doubt that mocking accomplishes much, other than laughing at the expense of others. That isn't why I started the thread.

I do apologize. To take the passage seriously, I find myself as perplexed as Barry. If the Holy Ghost is at all a significant god in Mormonism, as it must be because it is one of the Godhead, then it must exert a great amount of influence in the affairs of mortals. Thus, for an individual, much less a large group, to not even know that the Holy Ghost had come upon them and baptized them with fire is indeed an enormous conundrum.

 

[Blackmarch]

3 Nephi 9:20

20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

How can one be baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost and not know it?

How could this happen and one be unaware of it?

they felt the change, but did not know who or why until were taught by ammon and his brothers.

 

[BarryK]

Barry, Barry, please calm down.

[/quptebbbbbbb/]
It is really all quite simple if you use the rationale I gave earlier in this thread. They were all drunk as skunks and remained so for a really long time. If they weren't, then there is a problem.[/quote]

the longer the binge, the bigger the hangover,
yeouch!!!!

but then again as you said, iffin they werent drunk, there is indeed a problem.

 

[BarryK]

It wasn't that they weren't aware so much as they didn't listen and fell back into wickedness. They had beleived, been baptised, received the Holy Ghost, then ignored it's promtings. (they knew it not) Whether they ignored the promptings because they chose to, or because they didn't fully understand them, the text does not say.

that doesnt quite work, how can you willfuly do somthing and not know it?
dont forget that the act of ignoring somthing is a choice followed by a decisive action.

and, as mintiond i my ear;ier post,
i gave the biblical definition of "baptise" the word that The Bible actualy uses, and what the word actually means.
please explain to us, by the bona fide definition of the word, how this is possible.

if you have some reason that the bona fide definitio that i have used is somehow innacurate, please show us documented, verifiable , generally accepted scholarship as evidentce to support you opinon