In the
records of his 29 January 1843 discourse, Joseph Smith said that:
The Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a
Dove but the sign of a Dove was given to John to signify the Truth of the Deed
as the Dove was an emblem or Token of Truth (Franklin
D. Richards)
Holy Gh[o]st is a personage in the form of a
personage.— does not confine itself to form of a dove.— but in sign of a dove.
(Willard
Richards)
In other
words, the Holy Spirit did not transform himself (temporarily) into a dove, but
the dove served as a sign.
Interestingly,
this was not unique to Joseph Smith. In a letter to Bishop Evodius, Augustine (354-430)
wrote:
Moreover, that sound of a voice was certainly
not made indissolubly one with the person of the Father, for so soon as it was
uttered it ceased to be. Neither was that form of a dove made indissolubly one
with the person of Holy Spirit, for it also, like the bright cloud which
covered the Saviour and His three disciples on the mount, or rather like the
tongues of flame which once represented the same Holy Spirit, ceased to exist
as soon as it had served its purpose as a symbol. But it was otherwise with the
body and soul in which the Son of God was manifested: seeing that the
deliverance of men was the object for which all these things were done, the
human nature in which He appeared was, in a way marvellous and unique, assumed
into real union with the person of the Word of God, that is, of the only Son of
God,--the Word remaining unchangeably in His own nature, wherein it is not
conceivable that there should be composite elements in union with which any
mere semblance of a human soul could subsist. We read, indeed, that "the
Spirit of wisdom is manifold;" but it is as properly termed simple.
Manifold it is, indeed, because there are many things which it possesses; but
simple, because it is not a different thing from what it possesses, as the Son
is said to have life in Himself, and yet He is Himself that life. The human
nature came to the Word; the Word did not come, with susceptibility of change,
into the human nature; and therefore, in His union to the human nature which He
has assumed, He is still properly called the Son of God; for which reason the
same person is the Son of God immutable and co-eternal with the Father, and the
Son of God who was laid in the grave,--the former being true of Him only as the
Word, the latter true of Him only as a man. (Letter 169.2.7)
In his On the Trinity 2.6.11, Augustine addressed
this further::
It is, then, for this reason nowhere written,
that the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is
less than God the Father, because the creature in which the Holy Spirit was to
appear was not taken in the same way as the Son of man was taken, as the form
in which the person of the Word of God Himself should be set forth not that He
might possess the word of God, as other holy and wise men have possessed it,
but "above His fellows;" not certainly that He possessed the word
more than they, so as to be of more surpassing wisdom than the rest were, but
that He was the very Word Himself. For the word in the flesh is one thing, and
the Word made flesh is another; i.e. the word in man is one thing, the Word
that is man is another. For flesh is put for man, where it is said, "The
Word was made flesh;" and again, "And all flesh shall see the salvation
of God." For it does not mean flesh without soul and without mind; but
"all flesh," is the same as if it were said, every man. The creature,
then, in which the Holy Spirit should appear, was not so taken, as that flesh
and human form were taken, of the Virgin Mary. For the Spirit did not beatify
the dove, or the wind, or the fire, and join them for ever to Himself and to
His person in unity and "fashion." Nor, again, is the nature of the
Holy Spirit mutable and changeable; so that these things were not made of the
creature, but He himself was turned and changed first into one and then into
another, as water is changed into ice. But these things appeared at the seasons
at which they ought to have appeared, the creature serving the Creator, and
being changed and converted at the command of Him who remains immutably in
Himself, in order to signify and manifest Him in such way as it was fit He
should be signified and manifested to mortal men. Accordingly, although that
dove is called the Spirit; and in speaking of that fire, "There appeared
unto them," he says, "cloven tongues, like as of fire, and it sat
upon each of them; and they began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit
gave them utterance; in order to show that the Spirit was manifested by that
fire, as by the dove; yet we cannot call the Holy Spirit both God and a dove,
or both God and fire, in the same way as we call the Son both God and man; nor
as we call the Son the Lamb of God; which not only John the Baptist says,
"Behold the Lamb of God," but also John the Evangelist sees the Lamb
slain in the Apocalypse. For that prophetic vision was not shown to bodily eyes
through bodily forms, but in the spirit through spiritual images of bodily
things. But whosoever saw that dove and that fire, saw them with their eyes.
Although it may perhaps be disputed concerning the fire, whether it was seen by
the eyes or in the spirit, on account of the form of the sentence. For the text
does not say, They saw cloven tongues like fire, but, "There appeared to
them." But we are not wont to say with the same meaning, It appeared to
me; as we say, I saw. And in those spiritual visions of corporeal images the
usual expressions are, both, It appeared to me; and, I saw: but in those things
which are shown to the eyes through express corporeal forms, the common
expression is not, It appeared to me; but, I saw. There may, therefore, be a
question raised respecting that fire, how it was seen; whether within in the
spirit as it were outwardly, or really outwardly before the eyes of the flesh.
But of that dove, which is said to have descended in a bodily form, no one ever
doubted that it was seen by the eyes. Nor, again, as we call the Son a Rock
(for it is written, "And that Rock was Christ"), can we so call the
Spirit a dove or fire. For that rock was a thing already created, and after the
mode of its action was called by the name of Christ, whom it signified; like
the stone placed under Jacob's head, and also anointed, which he took in order
to signify the Lord; or as Isaac was Christ, when he carried the wood for the
sacrifice of himself. A particular significative action was added to those
already existing things; they did not, as that dove and fire, suddenly come
into being in order simply so to signify. The dove and the fire, indeed, seem
to me more like that flame which appeared to Moses in the bush, or that pillar
which the people followed in the wilderness, or the thunders and lightnings
which came when the Law was given in the mount. For the corporeal form of these
things came into being for the very purpose, that it might signify something,
and then pass away.
Commenting
on these two texts, Reformed (Presbyterian) theologian Robert Letham wrote:
In Letter 169 to Bishop Evodius, Augustine
discusses the uniqueness of the Incarnation. The difference between the voice
of the Father, the appearance of the Holy Spirit as a dove, and the Incarnation
of the Son is that the first two were temporary, rather than permanent, and
were simply symbols, in contrast to the Incarnation, in which human nature was
assumed permanently in a real union. As a consequence of the Incarnation, some
things are said of the Son according to his human nature, and some are said
according to his deity.
In De
Trinitate he explains this further. The Spirit did not beatify the wind,
the fire, or the dove—any of the material elements in which he appeared—nor did
he join them forever to himself and to his person. These physical things were
themselves changed and adapted for the purpose of making him known. Thus we
cannot call the Spirit both God and a fire, or God and a dove. On the other
hand, we rightly call the Son both God and man. Moreover, the fire and the dove
appeared simply for the purpose of signifying the Holy Spirit, then to
disappear. The Incarnation was both real and permanent. (Robert Letham, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History,
Theology, and Worship [Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing, 2004], 195)
