Since I regard God the Creator as dyadic, our Heavenly Parents, Father and Mother (actual, and presumably eternally incarnate, persons)...
And since I regard Jesus Christ's marriage to Mary of Bethany (Mary Magdalene) as a vital and transformative aspect of His work of the Second Creation...
Then it seems to follow - and has a intuitive rightness - that the Holy Ghost is also dyadic, and a consequence of the eternal commitment of Jesus and Mary in love (their "celestial marriage").
I think this is necessary because ultimate creativity comes from the eternal dyadic love of our Heavenly Parents (that is, the concept of creation includes (and/or arises from) love, as it includes freedom and agency - as distinguishable but inseparable aspects).
Thus the Holy Ghost is both guide and teacher, and comforter; and it may be that these aspects reflect Jesus Christ the man and Mary Magdalene the woman; after their death, resurrection and ascension.
In other words (bearing in mind these are emphases, not separate domains), the main theme of Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost is to contribute discernment and purpose in a long-term, strategic way; while Mary contributes immediate help, here and now, in a tactical way.
Jesus shows us the path, Mary keeps us upon it.
Of course this cannot (even in principle!) be proved from the Gospels; yet the account of Mary in the Fourth Gospel strikes me as compatible by what I have just said - and from other traditions in Christianity.
By my understanding, Mary Magdalene makes five appearances in the The Fourth Gospel: 1, implicitly in Jesus's Marriage at Cana (a passage that seems clearly tampered-with, including by deletions), in the resurrection of Lazarus (Mary's brother), the episode of the ointment on Jesus's feet in Bethany, at the foot of the cross and after Jesus's resurrection.
Mary's concerns in the latter four episodes are very immediate, supportive, "caring" - and indeed it seems possible that Mary had a role in the resurrection of Jesus in a way analogous to John the Baptist's role in the divine but mortal transformation of the pre-baptism Jesus into Jesus Christ*.
I get this from the hints contained in the reported conversation between the resurrected Jesus, and Mary, when she was the first to meet Jesus after his death, thus.
John 20: 14... she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. [15] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. [16] Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master. [17] Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
It strikes me that Jesus may here be talking of their future eternal union - to include the spiritual emanation of the Holy Ghost, available to all who follow Jesus - to happen (only) after Mary's death and resurrection.
In very general terms - to include Mary Magdalene/ of Bethany in the Holy Ghost is a further development and explication of the deadly rejection of the feminine that afflicted Christianity from early-on (and which I blame of the monotheist philosophers who captures and continue to torment Christin theology!)
The progressively increasing emphasis on Mary the mother of Jesus in Catholic practice, I take to be a theologically-distorted - but nonetheless spiritually very valuable - manifestation of the reality of Heavenly Mother, and the wife of Jesus Christ.
The fact that the Blessed Virgin Mary is mainly called-upon for aid and comfort in the difficulties of everyday living, fits with my understanding of the role of the divine feminine in general, and Mary Magdalene in her marriage-into the Holy Ghost specifically.
Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet, rediscovered the Christian feminine in God; but the CJCLDS have since neglected and suppressed this aspect of Joseph's revelation - and have chosen not to develop it, while never denying it.
I am strongly of the view that an explicit inclusion of Heavenly Mother in the fundamental concept of God; and probably too a personal womanly aspect of the Holy Ghost; has (belatedly) become an all-but essential quest or project - for us, here and now.
This is not something Christians can get off-the-peg or from any external source; but something each needs to work-through for himself - by the usual external and internal means of spiritual guidance.
*Note added: This is easily (negatively or positively) misinterpreted in terms of divided stereotypical sex roles. I mean much more and almost the opposite; which is that the dyad of a man and woman eternally co-committed in love, can do something that neither can do alone - or, at least, one person can do less, and less well. That is something like a harmony of strategic purposive wisdom with immediate help. By analogy (very approximate) it is a bit like the benefit of being loved and looked-after by two people, a man and a woman, each with distinctive perspectives and capacities, eternally combined in love; who completely share divine purposes and method. This would be better than any conceivable single person, with only a single perspective and vision. That this is two persons creates and sustains a dynamic and growing aspect to the situation - whereas a single person would tend towards inertia and stasis. That this is two persons, rather than more than two, should be seen as an extra gift and potentiality added to the situation of single person - rather than a limitation.
Well, we definitely differ on who the Holy Ghost is (though in my story the Holy Ghost bears Jesus' name and authority, kind of close, I guess), but we have arrived at the same conclusion regarding its dyadic nature, at least.
ReplyDeleteI wrote a post in July 2023 with a remarkably similar title, just as I was starting my blog:
https://coatofskins.blogspot.com/2023/07/the-holy-ghost-as-dyadic.html
That theme has been a fairly major part of the story I have been developing since, actually. In that story, though, the Holy Ghost is a set of Twins - a brother and sister.
@William Wr - "a brother and sister"
ReplyDeleteYikes! Except that all Men are siblings, in the sense of children of God.
I have read many people who circles around these matters - such as Philip K Dick in Exegesis, who also suggests sibling relations, at times. As with the Mother of Jesus and Heavenly Mother, there are archetypal resonances, presumably.
For me, however, the specific identity of the persons (Jesus, Mary M) is very significant.
I think the demons have put a lot of effort into derailing this specific quest based on my efforts to raise the issue with some of the more thoughtful Christians. On the one hand, the typical American Prot attitude toward Mary (Virgin) is atrocious, outright disrespectful, hostile. On the other hand, a goofy because too generalize “divine feminine” trap has been set, thus the usual false dichotomy directing everyone’s thinking away from Truth.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the Holy Ghost is dyadic, but not for the same reasons. Adam & Eve are the image of God--male and female created [They] them. I'll come back to that.
ReplyDeleteDown here, we are each told to "receive the Holy Ghost," or the gift of the Holy Ghost, after baptism. The holy ghost bears record. And record, recordare, means ‘to put back into the heart.’ It means ‘to intensify in the heart, to have knowledge and remembrance of what you had before.’ This has to do with your previous existence--your heart is your core. To record is to bring to your rememberance or stir up again in the heart. And [Christ] says this is why the Father will bear record of [Christ], and the holy ghost will bear record (3 Nephi 5:9). That will recall things to you. That’s what a record is.
So we each, individually, must receive the Holy Ghost. But for us to reflect the image of God, we must do that with our spouse, who also receives the Holy Ghost, and since the different "flavors" of the Spirit (in the forms of Knowledge and Wisdom) appear to be linked to gender, then for us to fully receive the Holy Ghost, we must do so as a couple, in the Image of God, following the footsteps of Christ and Mary, who are the Path.
A little more on the Holy Ghost & Holy Spirit, for they don't always seem to be the same in scripture but I can't always distinguish the two:
Joseph Smith's Lectures on Faith--which the CJCLDS removed from scripture in the 1920's--lay this out in an interesting fashion. The Holy Spirit is "the mind of the Father," (which I would clarify is the Mind of God the Mother and Father), which Christ partook of fully when He was here. "And as the Son partakes of the fullness of the Father through the spirit, so the saints are, by the same spirit, to be partakers of the same fullness...."
Joseph's inspired version of the Bible clarifies that the Holy Ghost is "the Record of Heaven, the Comforter, the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, the truth of all things, that which quickens all things — which makes alive all things, that which knows all things, and has all power according to Wisdom, mercy, truth, justice and judgment (Genesis 4:9)." This is a description of the personage of spirit that dwells inside each person. This is something that can be in contact with the holy spirit, or the mind of God (Father & Mother, Christ & Mary).
@Jeff - Interesting reflection, which show that you have been thinking this through for yourself, in just the needful fashion!
ReplyDeleteOne thing I feel has changed over the past 200 years is that we can no longer (passively) "receive" contact with the divine (including Holy Ghost). I think we must (or, at least, many/most people in The West must) meet the divine half-way by a conscious and voluntary inner act - and we must continue to do this.
Much of what you describe I feel is right, but essentially post-mortally.
I don't think these things can do done (except partly, and impermanently) in this mortal life. We *can* taste divine things, and choose them, and repent our failures - but we can't actually stick with our choices.
Baptism is an example. I think it is misleading, and setting-up disillusion or dishonesty, to imply or state that baptism-as-such makes a permanent difference to one to receives it. That is not something any earthly action can do - and the ritual procedure of baptism is (for modern man, despite counter-claims) ultimately (in and of itself) an earthly thing. Of course.
What matters crucially is here and now, not an event of the past. Which is why intent and repentance is The key.
I liked reading this. I have my own, possibly similar, ideas but find them almost impossible to express, and so it is fun to read your way of saying it.
ReplyDeleteI guess so much of the information I have is so decidedly from my own perspective, which is deliberately mostly illiterate because I find it a useful stance as a teaching mom to teach reading as a skill, and then to hear what my children can tell me about what they read with an open mind. One of my most literate daughters was telling me what she read recently in a Shakespeare play and I said, with genuine interest, "What happened next?”
I thought this related to what you said about these ideas being an essential quest or project, because in some way we are each to bring our own unique interpretation to a listening and unprejudiced comforter/encourager.
@Lucinda - I think that the most important thing is probably recognizing that this is something important that deserves our consideration, rather than grabbing for a pre-packed understanding - and the continuing honest consideration is probably more important than reaching a fixed conclusion.
ReplyDelete