Let’s talk about the Holy Spirit (Mormonspeak: the Holy Ghost, a rather dated term), one member of the Trinity in classical Christian doctrine. I’m inspired in part by the short book The Age of the Spirit: How the Ghost of an Ancient Controversy Is Shaping the Church (Baker Books, 2014) by Phyllis Tickle, a writer and religious thinker who played a key role in Emergence Christianity, sort of a modernized, upscale version of Pentecostalism. The more you reflect on the Holy Spirit, the less clear He or It becomes.
The Holy Spirit in the Bible. Before tackling the orthodox Christian view and then the Mormon view of the Holy Spirit, let’s first review the Bible view. In the Hebrew Bible, there was no separate “Holy Spirit,” there was instead ruach, translated as spirit, breath, or wind. God’s spirit (or breath or wind) or the Spirit of God was not a separate person or even a separate thing. It was simply an attribute or power or emanation of God, the One God. Modern scholarship has shown that Israelites, like all ancient peoples, recognized more deities than one, but if you’re looking at the theology of the Hebrew Bible it is strongly monotheistic.
The New Testament offers a lot of material to chew on: Is Jesus the Jewish Messiah or the Christ? If so is he divine? If divine, when did he become so? Or was he somehow always divine, even before birth? If he is divine as the Son of God, that implies a mode of divinity a bit lower than God, doesn’t it? Four centuries of slowly evolving Christology and Christian theologizing gave us the Trinity, the creeds, and a formula for Jesus Christ as “fully God and fully man.” But the less familiar story is how the Holy Spirit, too, got swept up into the Trinity in this theologizing process.
The Holy Spirit in the Creeds. The focus here is on the Holy Spirit, which was included in the Trinitarian creeds that were and remain the mature statement of the Christian God. There are three persons in the Trinity, God the Father of the Hebrew Bible (worshipped by Jesus of Nazareth, so of course part of the Trinity); God the Son, the exalted Jesus of Nazareth aka Jesus Christ (the timing and details of His divinity still a lively topic in Christology); and God the Holy Spirit (promoted from simply a power emanating from God to a personified Being).
The original Nicene Creed of 325, which starts with “we believe” and follows with many clauses, simply stated “and in the Holy Ghost.” The Council of Constantinople in 381 expanded the original at some points, in particular at this point. It gives us the following:
And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.
So Jesus Christ was “begotten of the Father,” but the Holy Spirit “proceedeth from the Father.” Even in this late fourth century formulation, the nature of the Holy Spirit is a little sketchy. While Christian orthodoxy affirms that the Holy Spirit is a Person (albeit part of the enhanced One God of the Trinity), the wording of the Creed shows why there are always minority Christians who see it differently. In the modern age, that’s Universalists.
The Filioque Affair. One more box to check before getting to the Mormon stuff, and I’ll just borrow a summary from Wikipedia:
In the late 6th century, some Latin-speaking churches added the word Filioque (“and the Son”) to the description of the procession of the Holy Spirit …. This was incorporated into the liturgical practice of Rome in 1014. Filioque eventually became one of the main causes for the East-West Schism in 1054, and the failures of the repeated union attempts.
You may think that “proceedeth from the Father” versus “proceedeth from the Father and the Son” is not a theological hill to die on, but it was for what became “the Catholic Church” in the West and “the Orthodox Church” in the East. The relevant point here is that either formulation still presents a rather vague picture of the Holy Spirit. Is He/It a person? A force? A power or emanation of God (or of God and the Son of God)?
The Mormon View. In the Mormon view, the Holy Ghost is not just a Person but a fully independent and autonomous Person. The Holy Ghost doesn’t proceed from anyone. Here is a succinct passage from the Gospel Topics section at LDS.org:
The Holy Ghost is the third member of the Godhead. He is a personage of spirit, without a body of flesh and bones. He is often referred to as the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, or the Comforter.
More Mormonspeak here. “Godhead” is a term you only hear in LDS church these days, sort of our version of the Trinity, a word you absolutely will *not* hear in an LDS talk or lessons about God. Likewise with “personage of spirit,” the term used to convey two claims that don’t mix very easily: first, that the Holy Ghost is truly embodied, not just some Force that permeates Creation, but second that it’s not really a body, it’s a spirit body, a “personage of spirit.” Do a Google search on “personage of spirit,” and all the links are to LDS sites.
The bottom line is that just as the Mormon view of God is rather different from the Christian view of God (and Mormons emphasize the difference by eschewing the term “Trinity” and instead using the term “Godhead”) so also is the Mormon view of the Holy Spirit rather different from the Christian view (and Mormons emphasize the difference by using the term “Holy Ghost,” not Holy Spirit, and the term “personage of spirit,” a formulation no other Christian group uses).
I could do a whole ‘nother section on “The Christian View of the Mormon View,” but I won’t. In simple terms, they see Mormons as Tritheists, one heresy on the long list of Christian heresies. The LDS view of the Holy Ghost as a truly independent and autonomous Person is a key part of that view (the Christian view that Mormons are Tritheists).
Feeling the Spirit. Here’s where it gets interesting. For all the significant theological differences in how mainstream Christians and Mormons view the Holy Spirit, this doesn’t seem to make much difference in how everyone “feels the Spirit” or how the Spirit somehow manifests itself. We all read the New Testament account of the Day of Pentecost in Acts and Paul’s description of glossolalia (“speaking in tongues”), then make connections to our own church practices and our own daily lives. Everyone claims “the Spirit.” No denomination claims to worship God and Jesus Christ, but only in a dead and un-Spirited way.
But again, the term “feel the Spirit” is something of a Mormon term. Do a Google search and a lot of Mormonish links appear. I could go on for another ten paragraphs (or a separate post) on the problematic concept of “feeling the Spirit” and how to distinguish it from feeling anything else. We all do a lot of feeling. There are some people, yes even Mormon people, who say they never “feel the Spirit.” There are some who “feel the Spirit” on rare occasions or from time to time. There are some people who “feel the Spirit” every time they read a verse of scripture or sing a hymn or set foot in an LDS chapel. It’s clear there is a lot of Mormon confusion on this by the number of talks and explanations about how to “feel the Spirit.” And why don’t we say “feel the Ghost”? I invite you to use that formulation in your next testimony meeting.
You may not lay awake at night puzzling over the Christian or Mormon theological views of the Holy Spirit, but I know you have heard “feel the Spirit” about ten thousand times in LDS talks and prayers. So don’t tell me you don’t have opinions on the matter. Stand and deliver.
- If you were an orthodox Christian before you became Mormon, what did you make of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity? How would you describe it?
- As a Mormon, are you or were you ever puzzled by the “personage of spirit” description of the Holy Ghost, that he has a body of sorts but is not subject to any of the limitations (like being in only one place) that having a body implies?
- Any bi-theists out there, who are fine with God the Father and God the Son, but view the personified Holy Ghost (rather than just a power or force that emanates from God) as a wrongheaded belief? This was, in fact, an early LDS view of “the Godhead.”
- How about “feeling the Spirit”? Are you a never, a once in a while, or an all the time person?
Wheat & Tares 
I am a “never”. As in I have never felt anything that didn’t feel like my emotions. For years I wondered what was the matter with me before deciding that no, there is something the matter with you all.
Now, on the other hand, I have had voices in my head that didn’t sound or talk like my own thoughts, but were too intelligent and dead on in their information to write off as just me being slightly insane. Just for comparison, my brother was hearing voices for years while the doctors couldn’t find an anti depressant that worked. He told me what the voices sound like, what kinds of things they talk about, and it sounds quite different than the 2×4 to the head kind of voice I have heard that is very accurate with the information given.
So, I will plead guilty to my kind of crazy with hearing voices, but y’all are crazy with feeling stuff that is just as made up as the voices.
And the Bible is not 10l% monotheistic. It is carefully edited to be monotheistic. Just as the Book of Mormon was edited to get the trinitarian stuff out after it was written. With both, there are still traces of what was edited out.
So, given the edited nature of the Bible, I am a believer in the old belief that Wisdom is the Mother Goddess and She is also called Comforter and Holy Spirit.
What about the supposition that the Holy Ghost is actually God the Mother? Isn’t there some speculation that one of Joseph Smith’s descriptions of the trinity was a Heavenly Father, Son AND Mother? I know I’ve heard or read that (more than once, even) but can’t remember where.
I think even the Holy Ghost is technically limited to one place, though His influence can be felt everywhere. How that works I can only speculate.
Over the last year, I’ve actually started to phase out “Feel the Holy Ghost” and express it more in terms of “Experience the Holy Ghost.” Far too many atheists, disaffected members, and mainstream Christians attempt to reduce it to “warm fuzzies,” and that’s just not an accurate description of my greatest experiences. At least once, I think Joseph used the phrase “pure intelligence” to describe the witnessing power of the Spirit, and I find that much more accurate, as if experiencing a software upload to the mind, an informational transfer by sunlight, or a bucket of shimmering water being poured into a stagnant pond. Emotions have accompanied those events at times, or were fruits of them. They weren’t the main event. I understand the psychological and self-hypnosis arguments, among others, but over time, reason has led me to conclude the Holy Ghost is exactly who we’re taught He is.
I’ve also come to believe there is just a general wellness and companionship the Spirit brings to the member seeking to improve (no matter the speed), and I sometimes feel we take it for granted. I can recall going to a Lutheran church service on my mission. I went in rather non-judgmentally for a missionary, mostly seeking out a cultural and educational experience. Many aspects of the service initially didn’t leave me feeling very different from our own services. Then came the infant baptisms, which I was genuinely curious about. As soon as the Priest let the water fall from the hand for the first baby it was like someone flipped a switch that instantly sucked all influence and/or remnants of the Holy Ghost from the room. It actually made me gasp, and a fairly distinct thought of “I cannot testify of this” went through my mind. It was a few minutes before I felt normal again. I don’t think every member would necessarily experience the same thing I did, but I find it a little ironic that one of my most powerful experiences with the Holy Ghost was when He completely left (and not because of something I did for that matter).
I still vacillate on stories from members as to whether they’re experiencing the Holy Ghost or their own intuition, but I’ve had enough “This isn’t from you” moments that I try not to judge. In all actuality though, I do think the wisdom of age and past experiences with the Spirit can help us to be a little less reliable on the Spirit, even if we’re as deserving of His help as ever. It’s probably part of the growth process.
“Feel the Ghost” FTW!
Humor aside, there may be no other part of orthodox Mormonism that I am farther from than on the subject of the Holy Ghost. Orthodox Mormonism sees the Holy Ghost as an unembodied human male. There has been the unorthodox suggestion that the Holy Ghost is actually a disembodied human female (the previously embodied version being Mother in Heaven), but I find that equally implausible. I do not regard the Holy Ghost as a sexual being or in any sense human. Those who claim that they have felt its “maleness” forget that the Holy Ghost channels the Father. (And probably the Mother too, but we haven’t been trained to feel that, or at least not to identify that feeling.)
I actually believe that the Holy Ghost is the God we used to mock in the temple “whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere”. A (slightly) more rigorous formulation that works well for me comes from a physicist who suggested the the Holy Ghost can be thought of as the wave function of the universe. I realize that such a belief borders on paganism and I don’t understand quantum mechanics well enough to elaborate on it, but from what I understand, it is potentially consistent with certain interpretations thereof if you leave out the Mormon stuff. (But it is not consistent with the “many-worlds” interpretation of quantum mechanics, in which a being such as the Holy Ghost would be entirely irrelevant.)
“feeling the ghost”. I’m dying over here. I doubt I could even start that phrase from the pulpit without giggling.
As a lifelong Mormon, I was raised with the idea that we all spent our pre-earth lives as semi-transparent human-looking ghosts walking around with Jesus and Lucifer and everyone else waiting to be born. We were all “personages of spirit,” so picturing the HG in the same way isn’t any more of a stretch.
I’ve heard analogies where the HG can influence people all over the world like the sun can warm people all over the world. (Though the sun only shines on 50% of the planet at a time. Maybe the HG is more like neutrinos that can go through the earth? (But not to places where it is after midnight!)) However the HG is supposed to work isn’t any more unimaginable than a God that can hear all of our prayers, even when we only think them, or a Jesus that suffers the punishment for crimes against rightness that others committed, or a universe that requires that someone suffer for crimes against rightness. All these things are simply The Way Things Are.
At my most believing, I was a “feel the Spirit once in a while” person. At this point, I’m much more skeptical of both what I feel and what I ‘know’. I’m much more willing to say that these feelings are just how most human bodies work, and can be brought on by social connections or just wanting them enough. Or maybe a much broader array of feelings are the influence of the HG that is being experienced by most of humanity on a very regular basis.
I love the idea of the Holy Ghost being the feminine Wisdom, or Heavenly Mother. However, since we seem to have plural Heavenly Mothers, as D. Oaks recently reminded everyone, it seems problematic and creates many more questions.
LoudlySublime, that assumes that Oaks knows anything about what he is talking about. Me, I don’t put much stock in the opinion of a hopeful polygamist. I am much more hopeful that females can be just as Devine as males, so my inspiration is just as valid as any old man’s. The Bible would back up the Holy Spirit as Wisdom, (reading between the lines of things that the men didn’t edit out) and Wisdom, or Sophia, is the ancient Goddess of knowledge, known in different ancient cultures by different names but always female. Her symbols are a serpent and tree, specifically the tree of knowledge and the tree of life. If you get into ancient Judaism, there was a Father, Mother, Son, and a Daughter, all according to the encyclopedia of Judaism. The Mother was comforter, and giver of knowledge. There are some scholars who have studied this more than I have, but I don’t quite agree with any one of them, nor did I get my theories from any of them. My theories come from comparing the Bible to other ancient pagan religions….and my own wishful thinking. But why is my wishful thinking any less valid than Oaks hoping he gets to bonk both his wives for all eternity?
When the Savior was introduced by the Father to the Nephites his voice was so subtle that the people couldn’t make sense of it on the first hearing. It wasn’t until he had repeated his words for the third time that they finally understood what he was saying. But the strange thing is–even though his voice was perfectly mild and subtle it caused every bone in their bodies to quake. Now imagine what might’ve happened if he had turned up the volume a notch or two. They would’ve flown to pieces.
This is where the holy Ghost becomes really important–IMO. He is a facilitator; he enables us to receive the word of truth without being destroyed by it. For some reason that I don’t fully understand his ability to communicate with us spirit to spirit enables him to transmit the word to our souls in its purity–undiluted if you will–without it being too much for us to bear. “But whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak.” (John 16: 13)
I’ve been a sometimes person. Sometimes it has been ideas and knowledge in my mind but usually a comfortable feeling of warmth. Mostly occurring when i sub as pianist in the primary.
I like the idea of multiple Heavenly Mothers acting in this way — there is one out there that connects with me better than the others. Unfortunately it doesn’t sound true to me. 😂
We have a way, as Sam Brown says, to be a little (a lot) mechanistic about the holy ghost, talking about it as a personal genie. I think there are two distinct and limiting issues with the dominant LDS formulation of the “Holy Ghost”.
1) It’s been weaponized–although it’s promoted as the “gift” of the Holy Ghost, in practice, its administered more like the “reward” of the Holy Ghost. 2) The presence of the spirit has largely been conflated with “elevated emotion”, almost like another category of emotion. We say, I feel sad, I feel happy, I feel angry… and some of those emotions are associated with “the spirit”, while others are explicitly said to be the absence of it. When we say, “I feel the spirit”, its shorthand for describing a host of subjective feelings that may or may not be from God. It’s quite confusing.
In 2020, at the Summer Olympic games in Tokyo, the American gymnastic superstar, Simone Biles was forced to withdraw because of the phenomenon called the “twisties”. It’s where gymnasts experience a temporary disconnect between their mind and body, leading to a loss of spatial awareness and control during twisting skills. It’s often described as a form of vertigo or disorientation, making it difficult to judge one’s position in the air and safely land flips and twists. This mental block can be triggered by stress, pressure, or other factors that disrupt the gymnast’s usual autopilot mode for executing skills.
I want to posit another possibility that seems more expansive to the phrase “feel the spirit”. The word “feeling” has multiple meanings, one is a subjective emotional state: “I feel happy”, “I feel mad”, “I feel peace”, “I feel jealous”, etc.
These are all emotions that are part of the human condition. They are neither good or bad, although how we relate to them can produce positive or negative output. What if we thought about “feeling” as “spatial awareness” rather than “emotion”, we are now diving into the realm of perception, bodily consciousness, and phenomenology (the study of lived experience”. How does this change the concept of “feeling the spirit”?
The definition fundamentally changes from an attempt to “feel good”, to instead become “good at feeling” all things. The word “Holy” shares its roots with “wholeness”, which was the common greeting of the ancient Jewish people, wishing “shalom” (peace and wholeness) to their fellow beings. Feeling the spirit is a state of connectedness, to the whole self, neighbor and God. It’s the loss of connectedness which scripturally is described as “death”, which would be the same as saying “sin” is a fracture to the trust which binds relationship. The have spiritual “twisties” is to lose our awareness and connection for our fellow human beings, to see them with contempt, and judgement. The “Holy Spirit” is the essence of non-physical presence. “Oneness” and “Unity” are some of the more common ideas associated with the strong presence of Gods spirit. Scripture rarely if ever talks about the spirit as an individual reward, but rather deep and intimate connection between people. The strongest presence of Gods spirit is social cohesion, oneness, and unity. To “feel the spirit” is a strong orientation to the flow and rhythms of life that produce mutual thriving.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Allie and others, you don’t have to go any farther than Genesis 1 to get the possibility of the Holy Ghost as divine feminine. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (1:27). Then there is the feminine Sophia (Wisdom) in the Septuagint.
Eli said, “I think even the Holy Ghost is technically limited to one place, though His influence can be felt everywhere. How that works I can only speculate.” Which of course raises the question of whether God the Father, in LDS thinking *literally* limited to one place, can also extend His influence everywhere. The correct answer is yes. So then the Mormon rationale for the Holy Ghost as a “personage of spirit” without flesh and bone doesn’t really make sense. It’s worth recalling that many medieval thinkers would run up against such inconsistencies, then often resort to something like, “It’s best not to think too deeply about such matters.” Or, more succinctly, “It’s a mystery.”
last lemming, ah yes, centers and circumferences. The good ‘ole days.
Dave W, if the Holy Ghost can, like the Sun, influence everyone all over the world, what about the Mormon Light of Christ? That is supposed to do the same thing, enlighten everyone who comes into the world, and it flows (apparently) from Jesus Christ, not from the Holy Ghost who is supposedly unique in having this vastly extended communication power (recalling that in the Mormon view, these are separate and independent Beings). I’m not critiquing your comment, just thinking out loud about how quickly one runs into inconsistencies when one digs down with just one level of questioning.
Jack, I understand. I often have to hear something two or three times to properly decode the speaker’s meaning. People’s communication skills have really gone downhill the last few years.
Matt, multiple Heavenly Mothers. That’s a strangely appealing idea for some reason. And maybe a Heavenly Nanny or two, younger and more energetic female divinities who go out and do fun things with the humans on weekdays.
toddsmithson, those are big thoughts. I do agree that LDS often use Spirit-talk in sort of a weaponized passive-aggressive way, to cast judgement on another’s words or actions by saying, “When you said (or did) X, I felt the Spirit leave the room.” Why not just say, “I disagree.” Or even, “I find that statement mildly offensive.” Name-dropping “the Spirit” is sort of like adding, “… and God agrees with me, not with you.” That sort of self-congratulating presumption is not uncommon among Mormons. Just one of the reasons a lot of people don’t like Mormons.
The biggest problem I have with the LDS understanding of the Holy Ghost is the idea that full access to its power is privileged and limited; that only baptized, confirmed members of the Church can fully experience its benefits. Therefore, Mormons as individuals should have the most finely tuned moral compasses of any humans on earth, and as a people should be leading the way in charity, compassion, peaceful dialogue, advocacy for the marginalized, and other Christlike qualities. Lived experience tells me otherwise. The mere fact that affinity fraud has long been rampant in LDS circles shows how easily “spiritual promptings” can be manipulated unethically (especially by other Mormons). The current Utah political landscape provides no shortage of other examples.
Anna, I always value your comments, and I agree that Oaks doesn’t know any more about anything than you or anyone else.
I didn’t mean that I agree with his opinion, only that I’m agnostic about the entire “godhead”, and certainly atheist on Mormon god.
To me, the Mormon conception of the Holy Ghost is sort of a work-around to explain how an embodied God who takes up one literal physical space at a time, can also be in all places at once. God literally can’t do that with a physical body, so God sends the Holy Ghost. This still doesn’t make much sense because he’s still one guy with just one body- even though it’s a “spirit body.” Can he clone himself millions of times? And, since when in Mormon theology do gods not have physical bodies? And what about the “Light of Christ?” Is that also a separate being with it’s own spirit body? None of this ever made much sense to me, even as a conventional Mormon. To be fair, the Trinity doesn’t make any sense either. To me, we run into problems when we try to be too literal. I now prefer to think of the HG as a way to symbolically describe how God’s presence and influence might move through the world. If that includes a divine feminine element as some have suggested, I’m all for it.
The Filioque is a really fun theological point and I was glad to see it.
The Holy Ghost picks up another level when compared and contrasted with the “light of Christ” in the context of Sophia, LDS theology and the Filioque.
Sadly we do not do enough theology of that type these days.
The Ripple Effect of Human Error
SA Examiner
Sandra Cruz·saexaminer.org·Mar 9, 2025
Mysticism for the Modern Seeker: A Review of ‘Embodied Kabbalah’ by Matthew Ponak
Matthew Ponak is a rabbi, a teacher of Jewish Mysticism, and a spiritual counselor. His book “Embodied Kabbalah: Jewish Mysticism for All” is a collection of 42 mystical texts with commentary that presents the essential teachings from Kabbalah and places them side-by-side with profound inspirations from our era and the world’s great wisdom traditions.
The never before translated texts shed light on unknown traditions of mystical enlightenment. Fascinating descriptions of the paradoxical nature of reality are placed next to cautionary guidance against travelling too quickly on the road to expanded consciousness. Spiritual practices for dealing with depression and sadness come along with illuminated poetry of what our world could look like if we all tried to be truly loving. Using the stunning visual layouts of traditional Torah commentary, Ponak opens the gateway for Judaism to add its much needed voice to the universal quest for meaning, inner knowing, and rooted transcendence. (Barnes & Noble, 2025)
Ponak’s Embodied Kabbalah not just a random intro, it’s meant as my opening case study for the very error I attempt to trace: replacing the Horev Oral Torah’s judicial common law with a modern, universalized personal spirituality. Ponak’s book serves as a modern textbook case study of the shift from justice as faith, unto personal mystical belief theology.
His project universalizes Jewish mysticism, detached from the Sanhedrin’s common law legal mandate, and reframes Torah as a “alien voice”, a pluralist “quest for meaning, search for the Holy Grail” — thus replacing the Oral Torah’s function with an individualized internal experience.
This is the same error likewise made famous by the Samaritans, Sadducees, False messiah new testament crazies, Karaites, Rambam’s codification, Reform Judaism, etc.
Each case rejects the Horev Oral Torah revelation — the judicial precedent-based system (Pardes) — in favor of theological belief systems, Greek logic, or statute-law frameworks. Solomon’s Temple decision → Sadducee civil war → Karaite rationalism → Rambam’s statute code → modern personal spiritualities like Ponak’s, virtually the same idea repackaged over and again anew.
In each generation, the same Oral Torah rejection repeats itself, simply re-dressed in new clothing.
Historical Narrative: Timeline of Key Events and Figures
Tzeddukim (Sadducees): A Jewish sect active during the Second Temple period, known for their rejection of oral law and emphasis on the written Torah.
Karaites: Emerged in the 8th century, rejecting rabbinic authority and relying solely on the Hebrew Bible for religious practice.
Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE): A prominent Jewish philosopher and legal scholar who integrated Jewish thought with Islamic philosophy and emphasized rationalism.
Rambam (Maimonides, 1135–1204 CE): A key figure in Jewish law and philosophy, known for his works like the Mishneh Torah and Guide for the Perplexed.
Shlomo (Solomon): Often refers to King Solomon, known for his wisdom and contributions to Jewish thought, particularly in the context of the Hebrew Bible.
David: King David, a central figure in Jewish history, known for uniting the tribes of Israel and establishing Jerusalem as the capital.
Philosophical/Jurisprudential Argument: Key Concepts
Pardes vs Greek logic:
Pardes: A method of interpreting Jewish texts that includes four levels: Peshat (literal), Remez (hint), Drash (interpretative), and Sod (mystical).
Greek Logic: Refers to the rational and philosophical frameworks established by Greek philosophers, emphasizing deductive reasoning and empirical evidence.
Saadia Gaon and Rambam, though themselves deeply engaged with rediscovered Greek thought, fiercely opposed the Karaites and placed them under excommunication, just as the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim.
Common Law vs. Statute Law:
Common Law: A legal system based on judicial decisions and precedents rather than written Legislative statute decrees, allowing for flexibility and adaptation.
Statute Law: A legal system based on written government laws usually enacted by some legislative body, providing clear and codified rules. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaites denied the Sanhedrin’s legislative review. Both prioritized “belief systems” over the Torah’s demand for judicial justice—restoring damages, making peace between Jews.
The Karaim, while not as radical as Samaritans, still rejected the prophetic mussar of NaCH, as taught through Talmudic Aggadah – as binding mussar precedents which shape the k’vanna of mitzvot elevated to Av tohor time-oriented Torah commandments.
Theological Critique: Key Issues
Assimilation: The process by which Jewish communities adopt elements of surrounding alien Goyim cultures & customs; potentially leading to a dilution of Jewish Cohen-identity and practice.
Karaites, like the ancient Tzeddukim, rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev; as as similarly does NT Xtians and Muslims. This rejection undermines the core of Jewish law – as a judicial common law system. Both movements embraced Greek deductive logic over Rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive sh’itta\methodology—the (so to speak) loom that weaves warp and weft into a common cultural fabric which shapes and defines the identity of the chosen Cohen people and equally separates Talmudic law from Avoda Zara.
(Idolatry): The worship of foreign gods or practices that contradict Jewish Oath brit alliance which continuously creates the chosen Cohen people through the dedication of tohor time-oriented Av commandments throughout the generations, often critiqued in the context of historical interactions with other cultures and religions.
First let’s address the Title of this piece. Karaites, like their predecessor Tzeddukim, they reject the revelation of the Oral Torah. The After meal blessing, remembers the Tzeddukim attempt to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah. Both the ancient Tzeddukim — remembered through the mitzva of lighting the Lights of Hanukkah — their ignoble disgrace, of a pre-New Testament Civil War which also rejects the Oral Torah revelation of Horev, just as much as does the church today; and the later Dark Ages European Karaites – who relied upon Greek deductive logic to determine that a mezzuzza on the door post must include the 10 commandments – neither during in ancient times, nor the stupidity of the Middle Ages – from about 900 CE, which famously aroused the indignation of Saadia Gaon (882–942 CE), and the even more famous Maimonides (1135–1204).
These two influential “Orthodox Jewish scholars”, likewise erred and reached assimilated avoda zara ideas which, in their own unique ways, perverted the Horev revelation of the Oral Torah. Both these “Orthodox” men, raped the 2nd Sinai commandment – highly assimilated and wholeheartedly embraced the rediscovery of ancient Greek texts which had dominated the ancient world which witnessed the P’rushim/Tzeddukim Civil War remembered every year when Jews light the lights of Hanukkah. Assimilation to alien foreign cultures or customs fundamentally rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, and the Legislative Review Torah mandate of Sanhedrin common law courtrooms through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s Pardes inductive logic reasoning.
Nonetheless both of the Gaonic and Reshonic “orthodox” Era scholars absolutely rejected the Karaite heretical theology belief system. None the less the error of personal belief in some theologically defined God, this foreign assimilated error trapped both “orthodox” scholars. Both men, similar to the Tzeddukim and Karaite errors, likewise rejected the Courtroom authority of Sanhedrin common law to rule the Jewish Republic through the mandate of Legislative Review, as established through the Talmud Oral Torah codification. Both these famous rabbinic authorities placed the Karaite Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dumb supporters into a charem excommunication, just as did the ancient P’rushim did to the Tzeddukim sons of Aaron.
Both Saadia and the Rambam violated the Torah commandment not to duplicate how the Goyim worship their Gods – no different than as did the kingdom of Shlomo, the pre Ezra Samaritans, the post Ezra Tzeddukim, the messiah crazies New Testament and the Dark Ages Karaites and modern Reform Judaism of the early 19th Century. This classic error traced through the generations, commonly referred to today as “ASSIMILATION”\”AVODA ZARA”.
The re-discovery of the ancient Greek texts consequent to the Muslim invasion of Spain, reopened the Tzeddukim Civil War can of worms – some thousand years after the P’rushim lit the Hanukkah lights … the Rambam embraced Roman statute law which effectively abandoned the study of Talmudic common law and the logic sh’itta of Pardes introduced by rabbi Akiva. Cults of personality, famous rabbinic personalities, like for example Yosef Karo author of the Shulkan Aruch, post the Rambam Civil War, they dominated the determination of halacha. This new “replacement theology” supplanted the Sanhedrin courts-room common law jurisprudence “faith”, which stands upon the foundation of judicial precedents rather than personalized belief systems in some theologically defined God as an act of “faith”.
The revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev, 40 days following the Sin of the Golden Calf, on Yom Kippur: rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah – known throughout the Talmudic and Gaonic Midrashim literature as “PARDES” p’shat, drosh; remiz, sod. This logic format radically differed from the ancient Greek deductive reasoning based upon the Aristotle model, his 3-Part syllogism format. The Talmudic codification of the kabbalah – rabbi Akiva’s 4-Part Pardes inductive logic. This Pardes system of logic – it manifests itself through the 6 Orders of the Mishna and its ensuing Gemara commentary, based upon the working model of a LOOM. Talmudic scholarship seeks to “cement” the culture and customs practiced by all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Herein defines the purpose & scope of the Horev Oral Torah revelation.
As a loom has warp & weft opposing threads. The codification of Oral Torah common law into the written Talmud and Gaonic Midrashim, seek to employ the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva and rabbi Yishmael’s Pardes inductive precedent based learning & 13 middot corollaries, as the basis to shape and determine the Jewish, chosen Cohen people, common law cultural identity which shapes and defines the Cohen people seed of Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov.
The Talmud prioritized judicial common law as the basis of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Tzeddukim and Karaism, Samaritans and New Testament Xtians all universally reject this definition of faith, which commands the pursuit of judicial justice. The Book of D’varim expresses the comprehension: the righteous pursuit of judicial common law justice which dedicates, (think korban), the sanctification of common law courtrooms/Sanhedrins, which strive to make fair restoration of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews as the WAY to make shalom among the divided and conflicting Jewish people – throughout all the generations which the Chosen Cohen people experience a Torah blessing and govern the sworn oath brit lands.
Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim, instead embraced the Goyim assimilation which defines faith as belief in some theologically determined God personal I-believe- belief systems. The Rambam would write his ‘Mishna Torah’ statute law code based upon Greek and Roman statute law which organizes law into bureaucratic categories like farmers sell eggs by the dozen.
T’NaCH & Talmudic common law shaped rabbi Yechuda’s Sha’s common law Mishna; all based D’varim common law; consequent to its second explicit re-defining Name: Mishna Torah. The latter means “Common Law”. Rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna, (a common law judicial system) premised upon D’varim judicial Sanhedrin common law. The D’varim judicial mandate empowers the Sanhedrin Federal Court-room system to exert their Torah constitutional mandate of Legislative Review (A second interpretation of Mishna Torah) over all governments, kings, or Tribal Princes which rule governments as Judges. Like the T’NaCH Book of Judges portrays.
Both the ancient Tzeddukim and Middle Ages Karaim rejected the prioritization of common law Sanhedrin courtrooms as having the mandate power of Legislative Review. Hence small wonder that the new testament revolt likewise in this same vein rejects the revelation of Oral Torah pursuit of judicial common law justice. Both the Tzeddukim and Karaim rejected the common law basis of judicial justice-Faith; that later courtroom Judicial rulings stand upon prior Sanhedrin common law courts’ judicial rulings – as codified in the 6 Orders of rabbi Yechuda’s Mishna.
The later Karaim did not go as far as the ancient Samaritans. The latter replaced the 10 Tribal kingdom known as Israel. These ‘latter-day saints’, established their own Mormon like religion, they too rejected the Oral Torah prophetic mussar as codified throughout the NaCH prophets and Holy Writings! The later Karaim did not reject the masoret of the NaCH. They restricted their rejection of the Oral Torah only to their rejection of the authority of the Talmud and rabbinic Midrashim.
However, lacking the Pardes Kabbalah their “Torah wisdom” skills lacked the will to do mitzvot L’shma, a fundamental requirement to affix prophetic mussar precedents as the Aggadic basis to determine the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments – the key revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. The Mishna Torah common law re-interpretation of Written Torah based on positive/negative commandment toldoth precedents & T’NaCH prophetic mussar, their Mormon like new religion simply could not grasp. The public sanctification of the Name – only achieved when Jews elevate toldoth Torah commandments unto Av tohor time-oriented commandments by making precedent case/rule comparisons.
The much later Talmudic common law codification employs, so to speak, a 70 faces to the Torah — blue-print, diamond faceted, re-interpretation of the original Mishnaic language. Through employment of halacha contained within Gemara sugyot as the precedents by which to make a critical different perspective “view” of the language of the Mishna, based upon an all together different sugya of Gemara- halachic “facet” perspective.
Hence the Baali Tosafot common law commentary to the Talmud likewise jumps off the dof of any given Gemara, to re-interpret a given Gemara sugya, viewed from a wholly different sugya perspective. This common law commentary seeks to duplicate the sh’itta of how the Gemara learns the language of any given Mishna. Much like and similar to how a building contractor reads a blue-print, which contains front/top\side view perspectives. Ancient Greek deductive reasoning logic – basically flat or two-dimensional. Hence 19th Century Hyperbolic Geometry refuted Euclid’s 5th Axiom of plain geometry.
Both the Samaritans, the assimilated Tzeddukim, the NT Xtians, Dark Ages Karaim, and Middle Ages Rambam – One & all they rejected, or did not grasp the Pardes Kabbalah of logic taught by rabbi Akiva. The warp/weft loom, the Talmud’s most essential definition of Oral Torah, as judicial common law Mishna Torah – Legislative Review. However this most essential conflict, pre-dates itself back to kings David and Shlomo, and even to the Judges who ruled following the Yehoshua conquering of Canaan, long before the introduction of the Samaritans, after the fall of the kingdom of Samaria by the Assyrian empire!
The prophet Natan warns David not to copy the ways of the Goyim. Not to build a massive Cathedral like church/Temple. The Jerushalmi Talmud debates a 3 opposed by 3 Tannaim dispute. This famous Yerushalmi debate questions the central issue -Did king David, after conquering Damascus, established that city – as a City of Refuge with its own small Sanhedrin Federal Capital Crimes Courtroom. The pro opinions argue that Israel has a claim to Syria as part of the post Balfour/League of Nations Jewish state. The negative opinions reject the idea that Israel has a claim to nationalize Syria as part of the Jewish state.
Just as king Shlomo’s son at Sh’Cem rejected the advice given by the elder advisors to king Shlomo; so too young king Shlomo likewise rejected the prophetic mussar of the prophet Natan; king Shlomo decided to construct a grand duplication of how Goyim civilizations worship their Gods; king Shlomo worshipped avoda zara when he ordered the construction of the First Temple and failed to judge the Capital Crimes case of the two prostitutes – dead baby – before a Great Sanhedrin Federal court in Jerusalem.
The Talmud refers to this error as “Descending Generations”. This idea starkly contrasts with Calvin’s theology known as “Predestination”. The descending generations idea views downstream generations comparable to ripples consequent to a stone striking a pond. Once a powerful influential leader, such as either king Shlomo or the Rambam, made their respective decisions which rejected the revelaltion of the Oral Torah at Horev, all later generation followed the identical error.
King Shlomo prioritized duplicating how the goyim worshipped their Gods by constructing a grand Temple; while Rambam embraced the sh’itta of the T’zeddukim and sought to convert the Talmud (not into a polis city state) but rather into a statute law syllogism Greek logic belief system which perverted faith away from judicial justice — which strives to make fair restitution of damages. Unto a belief system theology which prioritizes the Ego ‘I believe’ avoda zarah and thereby perverts the God of Israel unto just another treif Av Tuma monotheistic god. Monotheism, by definition, profanes the 2nd Sinai commandment. Herein traces Human error made throughout the Ages where upon Man has walked the Face of this Earth.