James Talmage on the Holy Spirit Dwelling in non-believers

The Holy Spirit dwells not in tabernacles unfit and unworthy. Paul makes the sublime declaration that man may become the temple of God, with the Spirit of God dwelling within him; and the apostle specifies the penalty prescribed for defiling a structure sanctified by so holy a presence (see 1 Cor. 3:16; see also 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; D&C 93:35). Faith in God leads to repentance of sin; this is followed by baptism in water for the remission of sins, and this in turn by the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, or the right and title to the personal association and inspiring ministration of the Holy Ghost, through those power come sanctification and the specific gifts of God.

An Exception to this Sequence is shown in the case of the devout Gentile, Cornelius, unto whom, together with his family, came the Holy Ghost, with such power that they spake with new tongues to the glorification of God, and this before their baptism (See Acts, chap. 10). But sufficient reason for this departure from the usual order is seen in the prejudice that existed among the Jews toward other nations, which, but for the Lord’s direct instructions to Peter, would have hindered the apostle from ministering unto the Gentiles. As it was, his act was condemned by his own people; but he answered their criticisms with a recital of the lesson given him of God, and the undeniable evidence of the divine will as shown in the reception of the Holy Ghost by Cornelius and his family before baptism.

In another sense the Holy Ghost has frequently operated for good through persons that were unbaptized; indeed, some measure of His power is given to all mankind; for, as seen already, the Holy Spirit is the medium of intelligence, of wise direction, of development, of life. Manifestation of the power of God, as made plain through the operations of the Spirit, are seen in the triumphs of ennobling art, the discoveries of science, and the events of history; with all of which the carnal mind may believe that God takes no direct concern. Not a truth has ever been made the property of humankind except through the power of that great Spirit who exists to do the bidding of the Father and the Son. And yet the actual companionship of the Holy Ghost, the divinely-bestowed right to His ministrations, the sanctifying baptism with fire, are given as a permanent and personal possession only to the faithful, repentant, baptized candidate for salvation; and with all such this gift shall abide unless it be forfeited through transgression. (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith [London: West European Mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1962], 164-65)

Joseph F. Smith on "the Spirit of the Lord" and "the Holy Ghost"

The question is often asked, is there any difference between the Spirit of the Lord and the Holy Ghost? The terms are frequently used synonymously. We often say the Spirit of God when we mean the Holy Ghost; we likewise say the Holy Ghost when we mean the Spirit of God. The Holy Ghost is a personage in the Godhead, and is not that which lighteth every man that comes into the world. It is the Spirit of God which proceeds through Christ to the world, that enlightens every man that comes into the world, and that strives with the children of men, and will continue to strive with them, until it brings them to a knowledge of the truth and the possession of the greater light and testimony of the Holy Ghost. If, however, he receives that greater light, and then sin against it, the Spirit of God will cease to strive with him, and the Holy Ghost will wholly depart from him. Then will he persecute the truth; then will he seek the blood of the innocent; then will he not scruple at the commission of any crime; except so far as he may fear the penalties of the law, in consequence of the crime upon himself. (Pres. Joseph F. Smith, “The Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit,” Improvement Era volume XI no. 5 [March 1908]:381-82)

Thomas Nash on John 6 and "drinking blood" in the Lord's Supper

While I strongly disagree with his attempt to defend the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and the dogmatic understanding of the nature of “Real Presence” (i.e., Transubstantiation [for more on this, see Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)]), Catholic apologist Thomas Nash provides some good insights into the injunction not to consume blood in Leviticus and the reaction of the Jews in John 6:

Drink my Blood: Jesus Unveils a New Way

Because of his Bread of Life discourse, John notes that Jesus was a marked man: “After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea because the Jews sought to kill him” (Jn 7:1). Why would many of the Jews seek to kill Jesus? Because they perceived that he was, in effect, urging them to reject the Mosaic covenant. His command to eat his body and drink his blood would be, they believed, a violation of Old Covenant law that would cut them off from Israel. They had thought that Jesus had come at long last, as prophesied, to restore Israel to Davidic kingdom status (see Moa 9:11-12; Is 11:1), a status that had not existed since the sixth century B.C. Consequently, Jesus’ words about his Body and Blood had not merely disappointed many Jews; they also effectively served as a declaration of war. Jesus had not come to fulfill the law as he had claimed (see Mt 5:17), many Jews thought, but rather to abolish it and thus Israel as they knew it. A “false prophet” such as this, they thought, was worthy of death (see Deut 13:1-5).

The misunderstanding of many of the ancient Jews is, in part, understandable. Going back to the time of Noah, God had prohibited the consumption of blood (Gen 9:4). In Leviticus 17:10-14, this prohibition is reiterated and more fully explained. No Israelite, nor any foreigner who sojourned with Israel, could consume blood, lest he be cut off. Why? For God had taught them, “the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (Lev 17:11; see Heb 9:11-12). God designated animal blood to atone for the Israelites’ sins; blood represented the life of the animal, which was given for the sake of man’s life.

Offering the blood of sacrificed animals turned one toward God in repentance; consuming that same blood posed problems. To partake of an animal’s blood meant to seek the “virtues” of that animal, for example, the strength and courage of a bull. Such consumption would lead one to focus on certain animals in an idolatrous manner, as the ancient Egyptians did in serving their animal gods, which represented demons. In idolatrously seeking one’s life from a lower life form instead of God, man would be drawn down to the moral levels of that species, to act like a beast, as it is observed in the occult world.

When he first expounded on the Eucharist, Jesus was well aware of the long-standing biblical prohibitions regarding the consumption of blood. While many misunderstood him as attempting to abrogate these laws, Jesus was actually seeking to fulfill these laws by calling the Jewish people to a higher level of communion with God. The Mosaic legislation of the Old Covenant was not intended by God to last forever. Indeed, the prophet Jeremiah had foretold a “new covenant” that would fulfill the old one God had made with Israel after liberating them from Egypt (Jer 31:31-34; see Ezek 36:24-28). In bidding his apostles to eat his Body and drink his Blood, Jesus signalled that the time had arrived to establish “the new covenant in my blood” (Lk 22:20).

Given the common perception that consuming the Eucharist would cut one off from Israel instead of fulfilling the Old Covenant, Jesus’ invitation to his first disciples required great faith, an invitation that challenged them to move beyond their image of a political messiah and embrace him as the true Messiah. No longer would the blood of animals signify life for man; rather, the Blood of Jesus himself, poured out in the New Covenant, would actually provide life for man (Jn 6:51). What the blood of animals signified, the Blood of Christ provides. Because his Blood provides redemption, Jesus commands us to drink it (Jn 6:51, 54). (Thomas J. Nash, Worthy is the Lamb: The Biblical Roots of the Mass [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004], 139-41, emphasis in original)

"Cimeters" in Joshua 10:28-39

Commenting on the presence of sickle swords (cf. BOM scimitar or “cimeters”) during the time of Joshua (before the time of Lehi et al.), we read the following in the Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary:

Various types of sword were developed in the ANE for different purposes: (1) the sickle sword whose convex edge was sharp and intended for striking (Josh 10:28–39) . . .(Fretz, M. J. (1992). Weapons and Implements of Warfare. In D. N. Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (Vol. 6, p. 894). New York: Doubleday.)

 The presence of such in the Book of Mormon (Enos 1:20; Alma 27:29; 44:8) is not an anachronism.

For more, see the following from Matthew Roper:

Swords and "Cimeters" in the Book of Mormon

“To Inflict the Wounds of Death”: Mesoamerican Swords and Cimeters in the Book of Mormon

David Pawson on the problems of a purely "symbolic" understanding of water baptism

Commenting on the problematic nature of the purely”symbolic” understanding of water baptism that is rather prevalent in many Evangelical Protestant circles, David Pawson wrote:

Symbols are pictures which point beyond themselves to something else—but do no more than that. Road signs make much use of them, warning about sharp bends, railway crossings, or obstructions ahead. Then there are symbolic actions, such as the international gesture for hitchhiking a lift, waving the hand with the thumb pointing in the desired question.

Many think that baptism is no more than a symbol, a re-enacted ritual that says a lot, but actually does nothing. It represents a great deal, but reproduces nothing. It only looks like a bath and a burial, but in neither case is it the real thing. It reminds us of certain realities in the Christian experience, but does not bring these abut. It is simply a dramatic demonstration.

Three important consequences following this understanding:

First, the symbol becomes separated in time from the reality to which it corresponds. When a believer is baptised, this portrays an event which it is believed has already happened in the spiritual realm. When a baby is baptised, the time-warp is even greater since this portrays and even which may not take place for many years to come.

Second, the symbol becomes quite secondary to the reality it represents—and therefore not really necessary. The really essential part of baptism becomes the ‘spiritual’ bath and burial, not the outward act. Baptism is then in danger of becoming an optional extra, however helpful or desirable it may appear to be. This apparent devaluation of baptism is sometimes compensated for in the following manner:

Third, the emphasis shifts from what the Lord does for us in baptism to what we do for him. It is only ‘necessary’ as an act of obedience to him (or of testimony to others). It does something for him, but nothing for us. It is a human, rather than a divine, act.

However, the New Testament does not talk like this at all. The language about baptism is instrumental rather than symbolic. It is for the forgiveness of sins, it is a washing of regeneration, it is a burial and resurrection with Christ (Acts 2:38; Titus 3:5; Romans 6:3f). Saul, later Paul, was told to delay his baptism no longer but get into the water and have his sins washed away (Acts 22:16).

This is the language of divine action, not human acting. The emphasis is on what baptism does—or rather, what the Lord does in baptism. The effects of baptism are expected at the time of baptism. Symbol and reality are simultaneous, because the one communicates the other. The visible enactment does not point to a past or future event; it is a present event, taking place before the eyes of the beholder.

This is what is meant by calling it a ‘sacrament’. The word originally meant an oath of allegiance (taken by a Roman soldier to his Emperor, called the ‘sacramentum’); but in the church it is used of those actions which mediate the grace of God. One well-known definition runs: ‘an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace’. However, even this definition could be misunderstood as ‘only symbolic’. So let us be more specific: a sacrament is ‘a physical action with a spiritual effect’. (David Pawson, Explaining Water Baptism [Tonbridge, England: Sovereign World Limited, 1992], 49-50)

On the charge that this doctrine is "works-based salvation," Pawson answered this rather ably:

Some protest that this introduces the ‘heresy’ of salvation by works, by our efforts rather than by his grace. But in telling us that we need to repent (and prove that by our deeds), that we need to believe (and show that in our actions) and that we need to be baptised (in water and Spirit), the apostles were not telling us that we could save ourselves, much less earn our salvation by our good deeds. They were telling us that this is the way to be ‘saved by grace’. When Paul exhorted his hearers to ‘be saved from this corrupt generation’ (Acts 2:40; the translation ‘save yourselves’ is inaccurate and misleading), he told them they must ‘repent and be baptised’ (Acts 2:38). A drowning man who grabs and holds on to a life-line thrown to him is under no illusion that he has saved himself!

The apostles never hesitated to ascribe ‘saving’ effects to baptism. The title of his chapter (‘Baptism saves you now’) comes from the pen of Peter (1 Peter 3:21). Baptism brings forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), washing them away (Acts 22:16). Baptism frees from sin (Romans 6:4-7), cleanses the church (Ephesians 5:26), buries and raises with Christ (Colossians 2:12) and enables us to draw near to God (Hebrews 10:22). It is the bath of regeneration, the washing of rebirth (Titus 3:5). (Ibid, 57)

For more, see, for e.g.:

Christ's baptism is NOT imputed to the believer

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7

Vittorio Subilia on the Veneration/Worship of the Consecrated Hosts in Catholic Eucharistic Theology

Commenting on the Roman Catholic dogma of giving worship to the consecrated elements of the Eucharist, Vittorio Subilia (1911-1988), then-dean of the Waldensian Theological Seminary in Rome, wrote the following about this (theologically aberrant) practice:

Since the Eucharist, in distinction from other sacraments, ‘not only produces grace, but also contains the author of grace permanently in it’, it is to be adored, ‘as is clear from the very ritual of the August Sacrifice, where the sacred ministers are enjoined to adore the Most Holy Sacrament by genuflection and deep obeisances’.

This enables us to understand the developments in Catholic dogmatics:

In this way there is an ontological bond between the mystery of the Eucharist and that of the Incarnation, as there is between this list and that of the Trinity . . . These mysteries have a considerable likeness and affinity for each other. All three show us the same Son of God; the first, in the bosom of the Eternal Father, i.e., as he receives his being from the same; the second, in the bosom of the Virgin, i.e., as he comes through her into the world; The third in the bosom of the Church, i.e., as he lives among men and is made one with them un a universal and abiding presence. (M.J. Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christentums, Freiburg i. Br. 1941)

In this way, too, we see how some seemingly imprudent assertions are legitimized: such as qualify priests as

men who have power over God and their own kind, to the point of making God alive for them.

Further, from the idea that the Host of the Mass, reserved in the tabernacle, is Christ himself (Missae hostia ipse Christus), there understandably derives the notion of churches as the dwelling places of the Lord, and the exhortation to keep them always open to the street, so that passers-by may there meet the Lord and have from him favour and consolation:

See to it then, venerable brethren, with your habitual maximum care, that the churches built in the course of centuries by the piety and faith of generations of Christians, to be an eternal hymn of glory to God omnipotent, and to be the dwelling place of our Redeemer as he hides himself under the forms of the Eucharist, may be open as often as possible to that growing number of the faithful that desire to gather at the feet of our Saviour and hear his sweetest of invitations: ‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest’ (Matt. 11.28). Let the churches be indeed the house of God, in which all who enter to ask a favour, may rejoice at receiving all they ask (cf. the Collect in the Roman Missal for the dedication of a church), and obtain the heavenly consolation. (Pius XII, ‘Mediator Dei’, 20 Nov., 1947: AAS XXXIX [1947]) (Vittorio Subilia, The Problem of Catholicism [trans. Reginald Kissack; London: SPCK Press Ltd, 1964], 146-47)

 For more articles interacting with, and critiquing, what I believe to be among the best biblical and patristic arguments for the Mass, see, for e.g.:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)

The Importance of the Doctrine of God in LDS vs. Reformed issues

Recently, one Calvinist attempted to downplay the description of God's love in human terms, which would refute his Reformed theology, argued thusly (in an "either-or") manner:

I think what Calvinism does is that is avoids an anthropomorphic understanding of love and justice and it calls us to a divine understanding of those things. (beginning at the 31:40 mark)

In reality, the Bible presents God's love as "anthropomorphic" as God is indeed embodied--attempts to get around descriptions of God Himself, as well as His actions are, from an exegetical perspective, not mere metaphors.

For more on God being embodied, His relationship to humanity, and just some of the many exegetical problems with Calvinism see:

Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment

Latter-day Saint Theology and Acts 17:28-29 (cf. It is problematic to cite Joseph Fitzmyer?)

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Blake Ostler once said that the God of Calvinism is the Satan of "Mormonism"--I have to agree as the concept of God in Reformed theology is an impotent deity who is, Calvinist gymnastics to the contrary from Edwards et al, notwithstanding, is the author of sin.