How Did Latter-day Saint Doctrine of the Holy Ghost Develop?

Latter-day Saint doctrine about the Holy Ghost has unfolded over time. Early Restoration scripture (e.g., Book of Mormon, Lectures on Faith) often referred to the Holy Spirit as “it,” echoing 19th-century Christian usage. In the 1840s, Joseph Smith began teaching that the third member of the Godhead was a distinct spirit personage. Willard Richards and Brigham Young later added new details, culminating in the 1876 canonization of D&C 130. Afterward, general authorities such as Joseph F. Smith and James E. Talmage clarified the extent to which the Spirit of God is a power or a person, leading to today’s doctrine. In this interview, scholar Charles Harrell traces the development of the Holy Ghost in Latter-day Saint theology.

This is Part 1 of a two-part series about the Holy Ghost in Latter-day Saint theology. In Part 2, Robert L. Millet addresses common questions about How to Receive and Recognize the Holy Ghost.

---

---

The Holy Ghost Before Joseph Smith

How did Christianity view the Holy Ghost prior to Joseph Smith?

The development of the Latter-day Saint understanding of the nature and form of the Holy Ghost is fascinating both in its own right and for what it reveals about the way doctrine develops in the Church.

Old Testament

In the Hebrew Bible, the Holy Ghost or Spirit of God (Hebrew feminine ruach) is simply God’s divine power or active influence in the world.

As one biblical scholar observes:

There can be little doubt that from the earliest stages of pre-Christian Judaism…[that the] Spirit of God is in no sense distinct from God, but is simply the power of God, God himself acting powerfully in nature and upon men.¹

James DG Dunn, Christology in the Making (Second Edition), 1989, Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 133.

New Testament

In the New Testament, God’s Spirit (Greek neuter pneuma, archaically translated in the King James Version as the “Holy Ghost”²) is still largely undifferentiated from God’s power and never explicitly referred to as a person.

Moreover, it always uses the neuter, impersonal pronoun “it” and never “he/him.”³

Luke describes the Holy Ghost taking on the physical “form of a dove” (Luke 3:21-22, ISV), and it has been traditionally portrayed in Christian art as a dove—but that isn’t generally considered as its inherent shape.

The personhood of the Holy Ghost wasn’t formally adopted in Christian tradition until the doctrine of the trinity was fully formulated in the Council of Constantinople in 381 CE, although it has continued to be debated for the last two millennia.

Note: The term “person” in trinitarian theology doesn’t necessarily entail an individual having human form, but only a conscious center of intellect, will, and emotion. Thus, when trinitarians speak of the Holy Ghost as a person, they are not necessarily implying that it is an entity with human form.

---

The Holy Ghost in Early Mormonism (Pre-1841)

How is the Holy Ghost described in early Restoration scripture?

Early Latter-day Saint scripture identifies the Holy Ghost as the third member of the Godhead, but not as a person or personage.⁵ Rather, the Holy Ghost is depicted as God’s universal power and influence.

Like the Bible, both the Book of Mormon and early sections in the Doctrine and Covenants refer to the Holy Ghost as “it,” not “he/him” (See 2 Ne. 32:5; Alma 34:38, 39:6; D&C 76:35, 88:3).⁶

The Lectures on Faith, canonized in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, identifies the Holy Ghost as a member of the Godhead, but not as a person. Instead, the Holy Ghost is identified as the “Mind” of the Father, which also indwells the Son.⁷

While depicted as an all-pervasive power, early Restoration scripture also describes the Holy Ghost as taking on the “form of a man” (1 Ne. 11:11) as well as the “form of a dove” (1 Ne. 11:27; 2 Ne. 31:8 and D&C 93:15).

Grace vs. Works: Has the Pendulum Swung Too Far?

See more

How did those scriptures influence the way the Holy Ghost was initially understood?

Given that early Latter-day Saint scripture refers to the Holy Ghost as the divine mind or power of God rather than a person or even a spiritual substance (the doctrine of spirit matter wasn’t introduced until 1842), many church members thought of the Holy Ghost as a divine force or “principle”⁸ and invariably used the pronoun “it.”⁹

In April 1842, Parley Pratt equated the Holy Ghost with “the spirit of truth, proceeding from the Father and the Son, [which] fills immensity.”¹⁰

There was no essential distinction between the terms.

Early Latter-day Saint sermons and writings make no essential distinction between the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of God, the Light of Christ, and any like terms.

That isn’t to say that all received the Holy Ghost to the same degree, as only those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost are entitled to the full measure. Thus, the same Spirit that enlightens everyone born into the world is bestowed to a fuller degree on those who receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Scriptural accounts of the Holy Ghost taking on the “form of a man” and “form of a dove” led some Saints to conclude that, while the Holy Ghost is a pervasive spiritual substance, it could manifest itself in any physical form it chooses (a sort of Proteus or shape shifter).¹¹

How did the earliest Latter-day Saint teachings about the Holy Ghost compare to other early 19th-century Christian views?

While the earliest Latter-day Saint concept of the Holy Ghost differed from classical Christian notions, it resonated quite well with Christian ideas circulating in Joseph Smith’s day.

Most Christians belonged to denominations that were trinitarian and held that the Holy Ghost is a person. Others, however, like Unitarians and binitarians, viewed the Holy Ghost as simply an “emanation [i.e., radiation] from God.”¹²

Surprisingly, even many trinitarians had “acquired the habit of regarding the Holy Ghost as an emanation flowing from the Father and the Son, but not as being actually a person.”¹³

It is little wonder, therefore, that this more impersonal nature of the Holy Ghost pervaded early Latter-day Saint thought.

Why Did Eerdmans Publish a Book on Latter-day Saint Theology?

See more

---

Joseph Smith’s Teachings About the Personage of the Holy Ghost

When did Joseph Smith teach that the Holy Ghost is a personage?

The concept of the Holy Ghost as an actual personage in Latter-day Saint thought originates from several sermons delivered by Joseph Smith between 1841 and 1844.

• Feb. 1841: On February 16, 1841, the Prophet declared, “The God-head was Not as many imagined— three Heads & but one body…[rather] the three were separate bodys.”¹⁴

• March 1841: In a March 9, 1841, discourse, he distinguished between their bodies, saying, “the Son Had a Tabernicle & so had the father But the Holly Ghost is a personage of spirit without tabernicle.”¹⁵

• Jan. 1843: Then, as if to remove any ambiguity on what he meant by the word “personage,” Joseph declared on 29 January 1843, “The Holy Ghost is a Personage and is in the form of a personage.”¹⁶

• April 1843: The most significant pronouncement on the personage of the Holy Ghost comes from a remark the Prophet made on April 2, 1843, to Orson Hyde in Ramus, Illinois. As recorded in William Clayton’s diary, Joseph Smith stated, “The Holy Ghost is a personage, and a person cannot have the personage of the H. G. in his heart.”¹⁷

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith: Revised and Expanded Edition

See more

How did church leaders build upon Joseph Smith’s statement in William Clayton’s diary about the personage of the Holy Ghost?

Willard Richards added extra detail to Clayton’s 1843 account of Joseph Smith’s statement about the Holy Ghost. Brigham Young’s First Presidency later added their own clarifications, and the final version was eventually canonized as Section 130 of the Doctrine and Covenants.

What’s in Joseph Smith’s Uncanonized Revelations?

See more

Willard Richards added new details

Sometime prior to Feb. 4, 1846, Richards—Joseph Smith’s clerk—expanded the quote attributed to the Prophet in Clayton’s account to read:

the Father has a body of flesh & bones as tangible as mans the Son also, but the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit, —and a person cannot have the personage of the H. G. in his heart.¹⁸

Instruction, 2 April 1843, as Reported by Willard Richards [D&C 130]

(Richards was not present on April 2 when Joseph Smith gave this explanation.)

Brigham Young’s First Presidency made additional clarifications

Richards’ account was subsequently altered by Brigham Young and his counselors in 1854 prior to its initial publication in an installment of The History of Joseph Smith in the July 9, 1856 issue of the Deseret News:

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit; were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.¹⁹

“History of Joseph Smith,” Deseret News, July 9, 1856.

Final version canonized as D&C 130

Eventually, this version of the account was included in the 1876 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants as D&C 130:22,²⁰ thereby canonizing Joseph Smith’s teaching of the spirit personhood of the Holy Ghost.

---

Doctrinal Debates After Joseph Smith’s Death

How was the Holy Ghost understood before Joseph Smith’s published teachings were canonized in 1856?

Sermons and writings by Church authorities—most notably Parley and Orson Pratt—continued to promote the idea of an impersonal, ubiquitous Holy Ghost, only now it was spoken of as a substance rather than a principle.

While they acknowledged that the Holy Ghost could take the form of a person, just as it could take the form of a dove or cloven tongues of fire, they rejected the notion of the Holy Ghost being confined to the shape of a person.

Observation: It is almost as though Joseph Smith’s assertion of the personhood of the Holy Ghost was perhaps discounted or not well-known, since it didn’t seem to align with scripture and wasn’t given as a revelation.

How Has Temple Worship Evolved Since Joseph Smith’s Time?

See more

Orson Pratt’s view of the Holy Ghost as an inexhaustible substance (1848)

Orson Pratt seems to have been the most vocal on the nature of the Holy Ghost. In his 1848 work, The Kingdom of God, he stated,

The Godhead consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit…. God the Father and God the Son cannot be everywhere present… but God the Holy Spirit is omnipresent—it extends through all space…[as an] intelligent, all-wise, and all-powerful material substance….

If several of the atoms of this Spirit should unite themselves together into the form of a person, then this person of the Holy Spirit would be subject to the same necessity as the other two persons of the Godhead, that is, it could not be everywhere present….

Two persons receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, do not each receive at the same time the same identical particles, though they each receive a substance exactly similar in kind.²¹

So for Orson, the Holy Ghost was essentially an inexhaustible spirit substance, although a portion of it could, whenever expedient, take the form of a person.

It seems that Pratt was attempting to reconcile the assertion that the Holy Ghost is a person with his conviction from his own scripture study that it is an impersonal, inexhaustible substance.

The Holy Ghost as both person and power (1849)

In 1849, Orson Pratt conceded that the Holy Ghost may very well be a person, but that doesn’t preclude it from also taking on other forms. Neither does it negate the fact that, in its totality, it is an inexhaustible, all-pervasive spiritual substance.

As Orson explained, “There is no more inconsistency in one part of the Holy Spirit existing in the form of a person, than there is in another part existing in the form of a dove, and several other parts existing in the form of cloven tongues like fire.”²²

Somewhat consistent with the shared-mind concept in the Lectures on Faith, Pratt wrote:

“The oneness of the Godhead may be in some measure illustrated by two gallons of pure water, existing in separate vessels, representing the Father and Son, and an ocean of pure water, representing the Holy Ghost.”²³

Orson Pratt, Absurdities of Immaterialism, 25.

Orson Pratt’s sermon on the inexhaustible spiritual substance (1855)

In February 1855, Orson Pratt gave an open-air Sermon on the Holy Ghost stating, “I know of no revelation that states…whether there be a personal Holy Spirit, or not,” therefore “we are left to form our own conclusions on the subject.”²⁴

He acknowledged that different opinions existed within the Church regarding the personhood of the Holy Ghost, but that no one could say with certainty whether it was one way or the other. For Pratt, the Holy Ghost was “a substance that is precisely the same in its attributes as those of the Father and Son.”²⁵

No one could say with certainty whether it was one way or the other.

This was not to say that the Holy Ghost could not manifest itself as a person, for

whether there is personal Holy Spirit or not, there is an inexhaustible quantity of that Spirit that is not a person. This is revealed; this is a fact. And it is just as probable to my mind, that there should be a portion of it organized into a person, as that it should exist universally diffused among all the materials in space.²⁶

Orson Pratt, in Journal of Discourses, 2:338.

What’s Really in the Journal of Discourses?

See more

So for Orson, there was no question as to whether the Holy Ghost was an inexhaustible spiritual substance; the only question was whether or not a portion of it also existed as a person.

How did the Pratt brothers influence Latter-day Saint beliefs about the Holy Ghost?

Parley Pratt’s 1855 landmark theological treatise, Key to the Science of Theology, taught a doctrine similar to Orson’s, depicting the Holy Ghost as “a divine substance or fluid.”²⁷

As apostles and eminent scriptural scholars, the teachings of the Pratt brothers were highly regarded by Church members who would have been measurably influenced by their teachings on the Holy Ghost, no doubt throwing many into confusion.

What Did “Shake the Dust Off Your Feet” Mean to Early Latter-day Saints?

See more

Who first taught that the Holy Ghost is one of God’s spirit children?

The first recorded assertion that the Holy Ghost is one of God’s spirit offspring was made by Heber C. Kimball in 1857.

Following the 1856 publication of the revised Joseph Smith statement regarding the personhood of the Holy Ghost, the concept of the Holy Ghost as a personage started to gain traction.

From Joseph Smith’s martyrdom until 1856, there is no record of anyone teaching that the Holy Ghost is entirely a personage of spirit.

Then on Aug 23, 1857, Kimball, counselor to President Brigham Young, stated matter-of-factly: “The Holy Ghost is a man; he is one of the sons of our Father and our God.”²⁸

It’s the first recorded assertion that the Holy Ghost is one of God’s spirit offspring.

In November of the same year, Brigham Young referred to the Holy Ghost as “he,” acknowledging that he was a “person” who is “God’s messenger that diffuses his influence through all the works of the Almighty.”²⁹

On November 13, 1858, the July 1856 Deseret News article containing Joseph Smith’s statement on the personhood of the Holy Ghost was published in the Millennial Star.

Did that settle the debate about whether the Holy Ghost was a power or personage?

No. Despite this sudden burst of sermons and publications declaring the personhood of the Holy Ghost, apparently there was still a residual belief that the Holy Ghost was more of an impersonal force.

As late as 1888, B. H. Roberts was quoting Parley Pratt’s writings on the all-pervasive substance or “spiritual fluid” comprising the Holy Ghost. Roberts referred to the Holy Ghost as the “great spiritual force in the universe.”³⁰

Roberts further understood “the Light of Christ,” which permeates all things as being “identical with…the Holy Ghost.”³¹

Curiously, he claimed that “these ideas respecting the Holy Ghost agree” with Joseph Smith’s teaching that the Holy Ghost “is a personage of Spirit,” whose tabernacle is the entirety of “the elements of the universe.”³²

Clearly, there was still mixed thinking about the personage of the Holy Ghost. This is little wonder since the Doctrine and Covenants now had two conflicting teachings—the Lectures on Faith and D&C 130:22. Additionally, the expositional works of Orson and Parley Pratt were still in circulation in the Church.

Doctrine and Covenants: Joseph Smith, Theology, Polygamy, and More

See more

How did James E. Talmage’s Articles of Faith shape perceptions of the Holy Ghost as a person?

In the fall of 1898, President Joseph F. Smith asked James E. Talmage to write an expository work on the Articles of Faith. In discussing with the First Presidency how to approach the nature of the Holy Ghost, Talmage recorded in his journal:

Pres. Cannon in commenting on the ambiguity existing in our printed works concerning the nature or character of the Holy Ghost expressed his opinion that the Holy Ghost was in reality a person, in the image of the other members of the Godhead—a man in form and figure: and that what we often speak of as the Holy Ghost is in reality but the power or influence of the Spirit.

However the Presidency deemed it wise to say as little as possible on this as on other disputed subjects.³³

Evidently, the personhood of the Holy Ghost was still somewhat of a “disputed subject” in the Church.

Ultimately, Elder Talmage stated in his book that the Holy Ghost is “a personage of spirit” and observed that the same terms used in scripture to identify the “person” of the Holy Ghost are also used to identify his “power.” Latter-day Saints, therefore, should look at the context when determining which one is being referenced in any given passage.³⁴

Talmage’s Articles of Faith, commissioned by the First Presidency, provided a significant boost in promoting the personhood of the Holy Ghost.

How did Joseph F. Smith distinguish between the Holy Ghost and Light of Christ?

In 1909, President Joseph F. Smith went one step further in differentiating terms stating,

“The Holy Spirit, or Spirit of God, both of which terms are sometimes used interchangeably with the Holy Ghost, is the influence of Deity, the light of Christ, or of Truth, which proceeds forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space.”

Jospeh F. Smith, Improvement Era vol 12, April 1909. No 6.

The implication seems to be that any term other than “the Holy Ghost” probably doesn’t refer to the Holy Ghost except only occasionally. ³⁵

Of course, this is not to say that all uses of the term Holy Ghost refer to the person of the Holy Ghost.

How Did Joseph F. Smith Become the Prophet?

See more

How else did Joseph F. Smith contribute to the developing theology about the Holy Ghost?

Joseph F. Smith also made a definitive distinction between the person and power of the Holy Ghost:

The Holy Ghost as a personage of Spirit can no more be omnipresent in person than can the Father or the Son, but by his intelligence, his knowledge, his power and influence, over and through the laws of nature, he is and can be omnipresent throughout all the works of God.

It is not the Holy Ghost who in person lighteth every man who is born into the world, but it is the light of Christ, the Spirit of Truth, which proceeds from the source of intelligence, which permeates all nature, which lighteth every man and fills the immensity of space.

You may call it the Spirit of God, you may call it the influence of God’s intelligence, you may call it the substance of his power, no matter what it is called, it is the spirit of intelligence that permeates the universe.³⁶

Jospeh F. Smith, Improvement Era vol 12, April 1909. No 6.

What other doctrinal developments cemented the Holy Ghost as a personage in Latter-day Saint doctrine?

In addition to these authoritative doctrinal pronouncements asserting the personhood of the Holy Ghost, certain obstacles that had been impeding belief in a personal Holy Ghost were removed:

• B. H. Roberts updates: In 1901, just two years after the publication of the Articles of Faith, B. H. Roberts explicitly revised his previous writing on the nature of the Holy Ghost.

• Revised Parley P. Pratt statement: In 1915, Charles Penrose, a member of the First Presidency, revised Parley P. Pratt’s 1855 Key to the Science of Theology, removing Pratt’s depiction of the Holy Ghost as a “spiritual fluid” pervading the universe.

• Lectures on Faith de-canonization: Then, in 1921, the Lectures on Faith were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants, effectively de-canonizing the doctrine of an impersonal Holy Ghost.³⁷

So by the 1920s, it would seem that the doctrine of the personhood of the Holy Ghost had become widely embraced in the Church.

A Brief History of the Doctrine & Covenants

See more

---

Resulting Doctrinal Refinements About the Personhood of the Holy Ghost

How did the concept of a spiritually-embodied Holy Ghost affect church members?

As Church members embraced the doctrine of the personhood of the Holy Ghost, it raised new questions about the nature of the third member of the godhead that were gradually addressed.

1. The Pronoun Problem: Reinterpreting “It” and Omnipresence

Problem: One of the most challenging inconsistencies that had to be addressed was what to make of the many scriptural passages that refer to the Holy Ghost as “it” or that seem to equate it with the Spirt that emanates from God to fill the immensity of space.

Solution: The solution was to essentially consider the context and to interpret any language that defies the spacial boundaries of what a personage can do as being the Light of Christ or power of the Holy Ghost and not the Holy Ghost himself.³⁸

2. Reinterpreting the Dove: From Physical Form to a “Sign” of the Holy Ghost

Problem: While earlier Latter-day Saint revelations follow New Testament depictions of the Holy Ghost appearing in “the form of a dove” at Jesus’s baptism (1 Ne. 11:27; 2 Ne. 31:8 and D&C 93:15), the teaching that the Holy Ghost is a personage in human form raises questions about these passages.

Solution: The solution Joseph Smith provided was to reinterpret these passages to mean that the dove was only a “sign” of the presence of the Holy Ghost, since he believed that “the Holy Ghost cannot be transformed into a dove.”³⁹

This later notion of the dove as merely a “sign” of the Holy Ghost appears also in the Book of Abraham (Fac 2: item 7).⁴⁰

3. The Holy Ghost’s Probation and Future Reception of a Physical Body

Problem: The Latter-day Saint teaching that the possession of a physical body is essential for exaltation (D&C 93:33–34, 131:2–4), coupled with Joseph’s teachings that God and Jesus both physical bodies, fueled speculation on the future destiny of the Holy Ghost, inevitably leading to speculation concerning whether or not the Holy Ghost would ever receive a physical body.

Solution: In response, Joseph Smith expanded Saints’ understanding of the nature of the Holy Ghost saying in an August 27, 1843 sermon that

the Holy Ghost is now in a state of Probation which if he should perform in righteousness he may pass through the same on a similar course of things that the son has.⁴¹

In a subsequent (June 1844) discourse, the Prophet stated that

the Holy Ghost is yet a Spiritual body and waiting to take to himself a body, as the Savior did or as God did, or the gods before them took bodies.⁴²

---

Ongoing Significance of the Holy Spirit in Latter-day Saint Theology

What does the historical development of the Holy Ghost in Latter-day Saint doctrine reveal?

First of all, it shows how messy doctrine can sometimes be during its formulation period. It also shows the tension that can exist when there are conflicting teachings in and between scripture, statements of Joseph Smith, and views of subsequent Church leaders.

What Did Brigham Young Teach About Adam and God?

See more

It is also worth noting that this is one of many teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, not explicitly given as revelation, that could have been canonized. Why was this teaching selected for canonization and not another?

One possible response to this question is that it is a first principle of the gospel to understand the nature of God and, by extension, the Godhead. It is also problematic for the Church to have conflicting ideas among leaders and members about such a fundamental doctrine.

Today, Church members are taught a uniform doctrine regarding the nature of the Holy Ghost, which eliminates questions and doubts about this fundamental doctrine.

About the Scholar

Charles R. Harrell is an emeritus associate professor of engineering technology at Brigham Young University. Beyond his professional work in systems modeling, he has devoted years to studying the historical development of Latter-day Saint theology. He is the author of “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (Greg Kofford Books, 2011), which examines how Latter-day Saint beliefs—including teachings about the Holy Ghost—have evolved from Joseph Smith’s time to the present.

---

Further Reading

Explore more From the Desk articles about the development of Latter-day Saint doctrine:

• How Has Temple Worship Evolved Since Joseph Smith’s Time?
• Why Did Joseph Smith Reject Creeds—Then Write the Articles of Faith?
• Did Brigham Young Teach That Adam Was God?
• Who Was the Early Mormon Jesus?
• How Did Doctrinal Explanations for the Priesthood Restriction Evolve Prior to the 1978 Revelation?

The Holy Ghost in Latter-day Saint Theology

Read what other scholars and publishers say about the Holy Ghost in Latter-day Saint history and theology:

• “This Is My Doctrine”: The Development of Mormon Theology (Greg Kofford Books)
• The Holy Ghost: His Identity, Mission, and Ministry (Deseret Book)
• Wrestling the Angel: The Foundations of Mormon Thought: Cosmos, God, Humanity (Oxford University Press)
• The Textual Development of D&C 130:22 and the Embodiment of the Holy Ghost (BYU Studies)
• Overview: Holy Ghost (Gospel Topics Essay)
• Fragments of Revelation: Exploring the Book of Doctrine and Covenants (By Common Consent Press)

Sources

1. James DG Dunn, Christology in the Making (second edition) ©1989, Eerdmans Publishing Co., page 133.
2. The “Holy Ghost” was the common English name for the Holy Spirit prior to the 20th century. However, since the term “ghost” came to be used primarily to refer to spirits of the deceased, often in a ghoulish way, nearly all modern Bible translations use the term “Holy Spirit.”
3. Though the pronoun “he” shows up in the gospel of John (John 14:16–17; 15:26; 16:8, 13–16), it is only because the Greek noun it represents (“paraclete” translated as “Comforter”) happens to be a masculine noun (Raymond E. Brown, “The Holy Ghost as Paraclete: The Gift of John’s Gospel”). So, it is the word “Comforter” that is masculine and not the Holy Ghost. B. Wallace explains, “There is no text in the NT that clearly or even probably affirms the personality of the Holy Spirit through the route of Greek grammar. The basis for this doctrine must be on other grounds….” Daniel B. Wallace, “Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 13 (2003), 125.
4. For a history of the term “person” in trinitarian theology, see https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm
5. In Latter-day Saint literature, the term person or personage appears to always refer to a sentient being having human form, whether physical or spiritual.
6. Some commentators point to 1 Nephi 11:11, in which the “Spirit of the Lord” speaks to Nephi in “the form of a man,” as evidence that the HG is a personage (1 Ne. 11:11). This reading is a tenuous, however, since several verses later, Nephi sees the HG appearing at Christ’s baptism in physical “form of a dove” (1 Ne. 11:27). The implication seems to be that the HG temporarily took on the form of a man in order to converse with Nephi. This was taught by OP up until at least 1855 and was even acknowledged in Talmage’s Articles of Faith which states, “The Holy Ghost…is not tabernacled in a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit; yet we know that the Spirit has manifested Himself in the form of a man.” (AOF (Deseret Book Co. 1899), 38, 144.)
7. Lectures on Faith, 5:2.
8. In a March 12, 1836 letter to his sister, Lorenzo Snow referred to the HG as “a holy principle” (p. 61) Later, after learning that spirit is matter, he would refer to the HG as a “heavenly principle or element.” (Eliza R. Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, SLC UT, Deseret News Co.,1884, 8)
9. See, for example, M. C. Nickerson, Messenger and Advocate, vol 1, April 1835, 100. Brigham Young, JD 4:22, Aug17, 1856. Even JS, just over a year after teaching that the HG is a person, wrote in June 1842, “We believe in its [i.e., the Holy Ghost] being a comforter and a witness bearer, ‘that it brings things past to our remembrance…. [Jn 14:26]” Joseph Smith, “Gift of the Holy Ghost,” Times and Seasons, 15 June 1842, 823. Here Smith even paraphrases Jn. 14:26 using the pronoun “it” when “he” is used in the KJV. See also TS 15 Aug, 1844, 614.
10. MS 2:187 (April, 1842); see also Parley P. Pratt, “The True God and His Worship Contrasted with Idolatry,” 187.
11. Orson Pratt, up through at least 1855, interpreted these passages to mean that the HG could temporarily take on any form it chose. Even Talmage’s 1899 Articles of Faith states, “The Holy Ghost…is not tabernacled in a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit; yet we know that the Spirit has manifested Himself in the form of a man.” (AOF (Deseret Book Co. 1899), 38, 144.)
12. Unitarian Noah Worcester explained in 1812, “[If] God is represented by the metaphor of the natural sun . . . then the rays . . . which emanate or proceed from the sun, are an emblem of the Holy Spirit, which proceedeth from the Father. Like the rays of the sun, these Divine emanations . . . illuminate, quicken, invigorate and fructify.” Noah Worcester, Bible News, or Sacred Truths Relating to the Living God, His Only Son, and Holy Spirit, 192. Primitivist David Millard also observed that “Instead of the holy Ghost being a distinct person, it is represented in scripture as…a divine emanation from God, which he diffuses or pours out” David Millard, The True Messiah in Scripture Light, (Union Mills, NY, 1837), 86.
13. Charles H. Spurgeon, Sermons of C. H. Spurgeon of London, 46. One Unitarian observed that “a large number now in membership in Trinitarian sects, are Unitarian in belief.” David Millard, The True Messiah in Scripture Light, (Union Mills, NY, 1837), vii.
14. JS, Discourse, [Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 16 Feb. 1841]. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/account-of-meeting-and-discourse-circa-16february-1841. Smith’s later remark in June, 1844 that he has “always declared…the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit,” is difficult to reconcile with the historical record.
15. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-circa-9-march-1841-a/1#full-transcript. Both of these pronouncements were made to small groups and recorded only by McIntire in his “Minute Book.”
16. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-1838-1856-volume-d-1-1-august-1842-1-july-1843/101
17. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-2-april-1843-as-reported-by-william-clayton-dc-130/1#full-transcript. For a detailed history of the textual development of D&C 130:22 see “The Textual Development of D&C 130:22 and the Embodiment of the Holy Ghost.” BYU Studies 52:3
18. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/instruction-2-april-1843-as-reported-by-willard-richards-dc-130/1#full-transcript. Willard Richards was not present when JS gave this explanation so he likely got his account from from Clayton or his journal.
19. “History of Joseph Smith,” Deseret News, July 9, 1856. Why Young decided to change the sense of Clayton and Richard’s account, which states that the HG can’t dwell in one’s heart to read that the very reason that the HG is a Spirit is so that he can dwell in ones’s heart is unclear. Perhaps he saw the teaching as inconsistent with what the scriptures taught as well as what the Church had been teaching from the beginning including, most notably, Young himself. Given that the current Latter-day Saint teaching is that it is actually the Spirit radiating from the HG that dwells in the hearts of the righteous, it is unclear why the HG needs to be a Spirit at all, since this same spirit radiates from the Father and Son who do have physical bodies.
20. The 1876 Doctrine and Covenants was not the result of a church-wide vote, but rather an editorial revision and addition of material by Orson Pratt under the direction of Brigham Young.
21. Orson Pratt, The Kingdom of God, (1848), 4-5.
22. Orson Pratt, Absurdities of Immaterialism, or, A Reply to T. W. P. Taylders Pamphlet, entitled, The Materialism of the Mormons or Latter-Day Saints, Examined and Exposed (Liverpool: R. James, 1849), 24-25. Pratt’s pamphlet was subsequently reproduced in several Church periodicals giving it wide distribution.
23. Orson Pratt, Absurdities of Immaterialism, 25.
24. Orson Pratt, JD 2:337-38. Pratt gives his perspective on the current belief of Saints on the HG stating, “I will tell you what I believe in regard to the Holy Ghost’s being a person: but I know of no revelation that states that this is the fact, neither is there any that informs us that it is not the fact, so we are left to form our own conclusions upon the subject, and hence some have concluded that they were right, and that others were not. It is in fact a matter of doubt with many, and of uncertainty, I believe, with all, whether there be a personal Holy Spirit, or not.”
25. Orson Pratt, “The Holy Spirit,” (Liverpool: LDS Book and Star Depot, August 25, 1856–March 15, 1857), 50–56.
26. Orson Pratt, in Journal of Discourses, 2:338.
27. Parley P. Pratt, Key to the Science of Theology, (1855), 30.
28. JD 5:179 Aug 23, 1857.
29. JD 6:95-96 Nov 29, 1857.
30. B. H. Roberts, The Gospel: An Exposition of its First Principles, (Salt Lake City: The Contributor Company), 241.
31. Roberts, The Gospel, 244.
32. Roberts, The Gospel, 244. Roberts may have been echoing Orson Pratt’s notion of the HG being all-pervasive, yet a portion of it taking on the form of a personage.
33. Talmage Journals, January 5, 1894.
34. Talmage, Articles of Faith (SLC: The Deseret News, 1899), 144-45. For a more complete discussion of Talmage’s contribution to the nature of the HG in LDS theology, see Thomas G. Alexander, “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine,” Sunstone (May, 1985), 12.
35. Jospeh F. Smith, IE vol 12, April 1909. No 6.
36. Jospeh F. Smith, IE vol 12, April 1909. No 6.
37. Historian Thomas Alexander notes that the explanation given by Church leaders for the removal of the Lectures from the D&C was that “they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons.” This explanation is puzzling given that the presiding councils and general assembly of the Church voted unanimously on August 17,1835, to accept them as part of the canon. See Alexander, “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine, 13.
38. As Talmage explains, “Much of the confusion existing in human conceptions concerning the nature of the Holy Ghost arises from the common failure to segregate His person and powers. Plainly, such expressions as being filled with the Holy Ghost, and His falling upon persons, have reference to the powers and influences that emanate from God…for… the actual person of the Holy Ghost cannot be in more than one place at a time.” Articles of Faith, 145.
39. Discourse, 29 January 1843, as Reported by Franklin D. Richards, p. 12, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed September 17, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-29-january-1843-as-reported-by-franklin-d-richards/3
40. This change in interpretation wasn’t picked up on immediately as Orson Pratt taught that the HG appeared in the actual form of a dove in teachings up through 1855. Since then, biblical and early Latter-day Saint passages alluding to the appearance of a dove at Christ’s baptism have been mostly interpreted as being merely the sign of the HG. Another way in which Latter-day Saints currently explain passages describing the Holy Ghost descent as a dove is that it was “calm, serene, and peaceful,”—but not that it had the actual “form” of a dove. (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 712).
41. Discourse, 27 August 1843, as Reported by Franklin D. Richards, p. 27, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed September 17, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-27-august-1843-as-reported-by-franklin-d-richards/3
42. This parallels a similar remark he made on Jan 30, 1842: “the God & father of our Lord Jesus Christ was once the same as the Son or Holy Ghost but having redeemed a world became the eternal God of that world he had a son Jesus Christ who redeemed this earth the same as his father had a world which made them equal & the Holy Ghost would do the same in his turn & so would all the Saints.” Discourse, 30 January 1842, p. 3, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed September 17, 2025, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-30-january-1842/1. Even though this question about the future destiny comes up regularly in discussions on the nature of the HG, any answer advanced is considered speculation by the leadership of the Church.