I have probably been thinking about this way too much lately, but it seems to be an occupational hazard when what I do otherwise is make hopeless arguments for the hopeless people that are my clients.
I wanted to share a common LDS example of the difference between what the LDS call “the light of Christ” and what they call “the Gift of the Holy Ghost.” In LDS teaching, the Gift of the Holy Ghost was not on the earth at the time Jesus was on the earth. The Holy Ghost was around, but this particular state of having its “constant companionship” was not. This is the explanation of why Jesus’ disciples seemed so clueless about who He was. They were simply operating on what Jesus taught and the light of Christ. This is why Thomas doubted, this is why Peter denied Christ three times – they didn’t have the power of the Gift of the Holy Ghost to make them strong and unshakable in their testimonies. After Pentecost, when they received the “baptism of fire,” the book of Acts shows that the apostles did not falter.
This story is used in LDS teaching to show that the surest way to know that Jesus, a man, was actually God (in the LDS sense or any other sense) was by accepting the testimony of the Holy Ghost, not by seeing visions and miracles. Why? Because, as shown by Peter’s humiliating denials, and Thomas’s obstinate doubt, even the Gospels report that intimately knowing the man Jesus, watching him be crucified for his teaching (not to mention watching him raise the dead) did not fully convince them that his cause was worth being crucified for. But after Pentecost, it is pretty clear that the Apostles were all willing to “take up the cross” in the most brutally literal way. This unbelievable commitment to sacrifice for the truth – like what Stephen showed – was probably what shocked Paul out of his complacency and prompted him to see the “light of Christ” on the road to Damascus.
The flip-side of the story is also fascinating. What in the world convinced the disciples in the first place, if not the Holy Ghost? Jesus must have been essentially a social outcast, a bastard step-son of a typical family, probably treated precisely like a step-child, he clearly took comfort in the scriptures and spent plenty of time thinking about their meaning, even when he was a pre-teen. When started his ministry it probably seemed to His community that he completely lost his marbles, they were ready to stone him for his blasphemies. He was a dangerous man to be associated with from the beginning. He openly blasphemed, ate and drank with traitors, outcasts, and sinners, did not share the revolutionary politics of the day, caused public disturbances in holy places, and preached the moral bankruptcy of all of the powers that be of the day.
What was it that these early disciples saw in Jesus words that made them break away from their culture, even if they were yet unwilling to give up their lives? To the LDS it was not the Gift of the Holy Ghost, it was the words of Jesus and the light of Christ that shone in his words. The LDS believe it is these words and the light of Christ that kept the church alive, in spite of the apostasy of the clergy, and laid the groundwork for the Restoration.
The words of Jesus…the words about Jesus, is how the Holy Spirit acts.
“I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God…” Romans 1:16 (I think)
What makes you think that Jesus was treated like a bastard stepchild when He was growing up? I can only imagine that He was a perfect son, and that Joseph loved Him dearly.
Related note about how many LDS view the Gift of the Holy Ghost now… a couple of weeks ago the sister missionaries knocked on my door, and I let them in and chatted with them for awhile. At one point, one of them said that she was so thankful that I hadn’t had my name removed (like Kullervo did), because at least I could still feel the Holy Ghost.
I laughed and said that I was pretty sure everyone can feel the Holy Ghost; Mormons don’t have a monopoly on it. She said, “Yeah, yeah, but… you know what I mean. You still have the RIGHT to it.”
I suppose that is just my guess given the cultural context. Maybe Joseph was a great guy and a great dad, but It might not have raised jesus social status if it was known that Joseph was not his natural father.
Jesus was at least attacked by the Pharisees for being a “bastard”. They would snidely ask him who is father was when they felt attacked.
. . . but that really has nothing to do with Jared’s post.
“Uh, my dad is GOD, yo… He’s totally the biggest dad on the playground. He can whoop all your dad’s behinds, just by thinking it!”
It’s a good thing Jesus was better than the rest of us.
Ugh, Katy. What did you say to the sisters after they said that you had a “right” to it but Kullervo didn’t? That would have made me nuts.