339 replies to this topic

[stemelbow]

Rob Bowman, on 11 November 2010 - 10:39 AM, said:

stem,

You wrote:



In other words, when you're right, you're right, and when you're wrong, you're still right. Convenient.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, if that's what you think it is.  I maintain that we simply know that to LDS "Gift of the Holy Ghost" refers specifically, if used traditionally among us, an ordinance performed normally soon after Baptism which invites the Holy Spirit to constantly be with a recipient.  We do not know that any of the apostles of the NT era used the same specific terminology to refer to the same ordinance or not.  Therefore we simply can't conclude that both can't be right, as you have done.  You seem to require that our chosen wording for this specific ordinance must align perfectly with what a particular biblical author has said. I simply question whether we must accept your premise--that our chosen language to refer to a specific ordinance must be consistent with the wording chosen to explain a story from the NT era.  We do not have much, it seems, to support your premise or my theoretical possibility.  I'm simply saying your conclusion seems hasty.

love,
stem

[Zakuska]

I find it funny that ANY one would argue against the LOHFTGOTHG when Hebrews 6 makes it as plain as day...

Heb 6
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Laying on of hands accompanies the reception of BaptismS (plural)...

1) Baptism in water
2) Baptism by fire

How anyone can argue against the "DOCTRINE of Christ" is beyond me.  

Edited by Zakuska, 11 November 2010 - 05:10 PM.

[USU78]

Zakuska, on 11 November 2010 - 05:09 PM, said:

I find it funny that ANY one would argue against the LOHFTGOTHG when Hebrews 6 makes it as plain as day...

Heb 6
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.

Laying on of hands accompanies the reception of BaptismS (plural)...

1) Baptism in water
2) Baptism by fire

How anyone can argue against the "DOCTRINE of Christ" is beyond me.  

Would you say that there can be no honest disagreement on this subject?

[Zakuska]

USU78, on 11 November 2010 - 05:14 PM, said:

Would you say that there can be no honest disagreement on this subject?

Would you agree or disagree that LOH is a principle Doctrine of Christ?

[USU78]

Zakuska, on 11 November 2010 - 05:27 PM, said:

Would you agree or disagree that LOH is a principle Doctrine of Christ?

I'm foolin' with you, Z.  From the OP:

Quote

Although honest people can disagree about many things, in this instance there really is no room for doubt that the statement made by Gospel Principles—that “Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized”—is flat wrong.

[TAO]

Hick Preacher, on 11 November 2010 - 02:14 PM, said:

TAO

You are looking for some BIG answers-

Nah, simply trying to make you think - I've already found the answers - but I take joy in making others think of the answers.

Quote

You can get a commentary and study these things.  Find one online.
Or access the criticisms of various versions. Such as:
http://en.wikipedia....cism_of_the_RSV

In the New Testament there are four big additions or passages of the highest controversy:

John 4 the stoning of the Adulteress,
1 John 5:7 known as the Comma Johanneum,
Matthew 6:13 the ending of the Lords prayer,
And the Snakes ditty that Ends the Gospel of Mark

To study about what is translated one way or another, can  also buy a lexicon  to look up original Greek and Hebrew words too.

Nah, your not getting what I am saying.  I am saying HOW do you know where the Bible has or hasn't been edited in the past, and HOW do you know by how much.  For all we know - the Bible could have been completely 100% altered from the beginning, could it not?

What makes a book in which we don't know the trust-ability of, a reliable source?  (I know the answer, I'm trying to get you to think of it)

Quote

The sub- themes of creation, the fall, life, death, the nature of God, adoption, sonship, sacrafice, repentance, faith, sanctification and on and on all support one Grand Theme of Redemption.

The Bible sets the stage by telling us that there is Creator God, who made man in Eden, Then the human problem is defined—by the account of the Fall, afterwards God made preparation to create the Nation of Israel, by contacting Enoch, Noah, Abraham—and brought forth Jacob/Israel who started the nation Israel.  The Nation set the stage for the coming Messiah, who is the focus of the whole Theme of Redemption.

So the Bible tells the story of how God interceded into a wreaked and ruined world to redeem mankind.  Redemption in the Bible is about atonement, which is the restoration of the lost  direct relationship between humans and  God.  The loss happened due to sin, once the sin was removed the relationship was restored.

Well then what do you make of this statement?

Quote

Titus 1
2  In ^ahope of ^beternal life, which God, that cannot ^clie, ^dpromised before the world began; UAdd a Note
3  But  hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is  committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

Bolding is mine.

Indeed - I think redemption is even a sub-theme of something else.  Redemption is a part of it, true - it is a great part of God's plan - but it is not all of it.  Indeed, I would not even classify the theme of the Bible as redemption - I would say the theme is God's Plan of Happiness.  Redemption is a part of it - a base of it - one thing which one must look at before understanding the whole.  I would say Redemption is the most important column holding up God's Plan save for sacrifice - I think sacrifice to be a more important and Godly column of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ's plan.

Quote

Gnostic things cannot be understood by only reading them anyway.

The term ‘open canon’ is an oxymoron. A canon is a closed set of discrete elements.  Kind of like the original Star Trek was a canon. It s canon was composed of The USS Enterprise, Capt. Kirk, Mr. Spock, Scotty, Doc McCoy and the other regulars. And this series as a canon played out.  Then Star Trek the Next Generation is still another canon- and Star Wars has its own canon.  But a canon stops being a canon if it is opened.

Well then, I say, there is no such thing as a full canon of God - God is not limited to the weakness of a canon.  He may use books to help, but no book is full of the truth of him.

Quote

A redeemed person needs both personal revelation and the written world.

However, is not personal revelation more pure and perfect than the written word?  Is it not of more quality and help then the written word?  For though the written word may be changed, the Spirit of God is one and the same; always.

Quote

Analogy--The written word is like the operating system of a PC, the Spirit is also a kind of Word of God- and  is like application software. To run the application software, the system software must be in order.

I disagree.  God's heavenly plan is the operating system of the PC.  The GUI (graphical user interface) is controlled by the Holy Ghost, using a method in God's Heavenly Plan.  Now, on the side, there is an abbreviated version of what appears on the GUI - but it is in text - not in images.  It doesn't portray everything the GUI does.  On the other hand, it is much easier to reference than the GUI (it's more strenuous to store videos than text).  That is the written word aka the scriptures.  A part, but not the complete vision of the plan of God.  It is good to reference, but one should pay even more attention to the GUI, which can show in much greater depth the meaning behind the saved text.

Quote

It depends on what kind of problem I am addressing.

Analogy---Mormons have great application software, but a check of the system software seems in order.

Yes one must have the Spirit.  Analogy-- A computer with system software is useless without application software.  But to run the application, you first have to have good compatible System software.

Hmmm... I would say...

Mormons pay alot of attention to the GUI, and as of such, must pay less attention to the saved text.

Others pay attention to the saved text, but miss out on the fullness of the GUI.

I dunno 'bout you, but I'd rather look at a GUI than text.  Pictures are worth a thousand words.

Quote

You have some BIG questions TAO-- they take time and study and work to deal with.  But they can be answered.

Sorry dude, as said, I wasn't really wanting the answers, I was wanting you to think about the answers.  From thinking comes great ideas.

[selek]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 02:32 PM, said:

Friends, these responses are not taking the text of Acts 10 seriously.

On the contrary, we take the Scriptures ver seriously. It is YOU (and your false dichotomies) that we take lightly.

[rongo]

Rob Bowman, on 11 November 2010 - 10:54 AM, said:

The problem, rongo, is that Joseph Smith and the LDS Church ever since have explicitly denied that Cornelius was an exception or deviation from the established pattern. From Joseph Smith in 1842 to the 2009 edition of Gospel Principles, the LDS Church has taught that Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized. My simple point: they are wrong.

Uh, Rob, my simple point is: you are wrong. You might want to re-read the Journal of Discourses quotes I gave you. They specifically deal with the Cornelius incident as "an exception or deviation from the established pattern." That was the whole point in posting them.

Quote

None of your lengthy excerpts address the point I have raised. None.

Because you say so? I think it is you who refuses to deal with what they said. For example, the background with Cornelius as a Gentile and the deep-seated adherence to tradition and Christ's command during His ministry that needed to be overcome. You continue to doggedly plunk away on your one piano key of "there-can-be-one-and-only-one-useand-meaning-of-phrases-and-words-in-the-New-Testament-worlds-without-end," but the effect of the actual influence of the Holy Ghost on thoughtful and interested people has made your inerrancy/infallibility/sufficiency position a declining one. There are reasons why the Mormon explanation of things is appealing to people, and why we continue to gain converts despite the desperate counter-measures of the SBC, or whatever anti-Mormon ministry you have currently bounced to.

Quote

The text does not say, but of course there is no reason to think that Cornelius or anyone else would have refused to be baptized. Your question seems to present what is called a hypothesis contrary to fact argument (as do the rest of your questions). The text doesn't say what would have happened if Cornelius had not gotten baptized. What it does tell us is that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.

You're arguing with a straw man, here. The quotes I posted specifically agree that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Ghost as modern Mormons understand it before baptism (they ascribe this to an exceptional contingency, outside of "the usual way" (quote #1) ). So, I agree that "it does tell us is that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized." While "the text doesn't say what would have happened if Cornelius had not gotten baptized," sidestepping the question and claiming sanctuary on grounds of "since-the-Bible-doesn't-go-there-we-don't-need-to-go-there-everything-God-intended-to-give-us-is-God-breathed-in-the-text-already-and-anything-else-is-unnecessary" is part of the reason why Mormonism continues to do well among former inerrantists. Your predictable and continuing making a final stand with The Bible Text™ is losing ground in the face of solid arguments and the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, working in people's hearts and minds.

In other words, if you put Rob Bowman's threads and how he interacts with people in discussion alongside the responses here from believing Mormons, and expose thoughtful, searching Christians to them who read them with interest, what side does the scale often tip to? And why?

Quote

Same problem. Look, I am not suggesting that people could continue to enjoy the gift of the Holy Spirit while spurning the instructions of the apostles. I am simply pointing out that receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit was not dependent on any ritual. This conclusion follows from what the text actually says. You cannot overturn this conclusion by speculating about what the text doesn't say about things that didn't happen.

But only in the specific case of Cornelius and his household. Elsewhere in the Book of Acts, as has been pointed out ad nauseum, the apostles insist on it and the gift of the Holy Ghost is only given through the laying on of hands. Someone else pointed out that the author of Hebrews listed it (the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost) as one of the "foundations" of "the doctrine of Christ" (along with faith, repentance, baptism, resurrection, and judgment). That God made an exception in Corneius' case (confirmed to Peter through the Holy Ghost) does not exclude the rest of us from the rule. God can give exceptions when He sees fit, but they will be exceptions precisely because they are exceptional.

Quote

Those "Brethren" are simply contradicting Luke. I go with Luke on this one.

Selectively, and only when you think it supports your purposes.

[Vance]

stemelbow, on 11 November 2010 - 04:47 PM, said:

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, if that's what you think it is.  I maintain that we simply know that to LDS "Gift of the Holy Ghost" refers specifically, if used traditionally among us, an ordinance performed normally soon after Baptism which invites the Holy Spirit to constantly be with a recipient.  We do not know that any of the apostles of the NT era used the same specific terminology to refer to the same ordinance or not.  Therefore we simply can't conclude that both can't be right, as you have done.  You seem to require that our chosen wording for this specific ordinance must align perfectly with what a particular biblical author English translators has have said. I simply question whether we must accept your premise--that our chosen language to refer to a specific ordinance must be consistent with the wording chosen to explain a story from the NT era.  We do not have much, it seems, to support your premise or my theoretical possibility.  I'm simply saying your conclusion seems hasty.

love,
stem

If I may, just a few minor adjustments.

[cdowis]

A clarifying question:

Can a nonChristian receive the influence of the Holy Spirit?  For example, was Ghandi ever influenced by the Holy Spirit.  Remember that he never joined the Christian church.

The LDS position is that he could have very well have received inspiration from that source, in the same way that Cornelius was influenced.  In the latter case, Cornelius then received the baptism of the Holy Ghost, received the permanent gift through an ordinance performed even as the ordinance of baptism by water.

One is the temporary influence of the Holy Spirit (which is a gift from God), while the Gift of the Holy Ghost is an ordinance administered through the priesthood.

In the case of Ghandhi, he did not receive that ordinance.

Edited by cdowis, 12 November 2010 - 08:27 AM.

[zerinus]

cdowis, on 12 November 2010 - 08:20 AM, said:

A clarifying question: . . .

When you are done editing that post, let us know so we can reply!

P.S. It has become utterly confusing now!

Edited by zerinus, 12 November 2010 - 08:34 AM.

[cdowis]

I'm finished.

When I post something, you need to wait at least ten minutes for the paint to dry.

[Hick Preacher]

TAO in quotes

Quote

Nah, simply trying to make you think - I've already found the answers - but I take joy in making others think of the answers.

Yes, TAO what you say stimulates thinking.  This is a choice I make.  I could just ignore anything that you write that I do not like, but I like to read what you have to say.

Quote

Nah, your not getting what I am saying.  I am saying HOW do you know where the Bible has or hasn't been edited in the past, and HOW do you know by how much.  For all we know - the Bible could have been completely 100% altered from the beginning, could it not?

What makes a book in which we don't know the trust-ability of, a reliable source?  (I know the answer, I'm trying to get you to think of it)

When copies of various Bible books have been collected from different corners of the old world, and verses of that Book read the same from one copy to another it is a significant find.  This is significant because it explicitly shows that those intact verses read as the original.  These diverse copies are copies of some pre-existing text that is close to the original, which when recopied those verses have NOT been altered, but were copied accurately.  

We can also know that the Bible was not altered drastically the beginning because the books in the Bible (NT) were not complied into one defined collection until the third century A.D.. Because of the diversity of the Christians during these early stages of development, we know that it is not possible for some central coordinated effort to modify the Bible.  By the time of the organization of such a body that  could have done so, New Testament books were widely distributed, so everyone could see how the originals read.

From a personal stand point, I study and pray about what I read.  Then in obedience I live out Biblical standards, and from my obedience I receive blessings from the Holy Spirit of God.  Some of these blessings include personal revelation, good fortune, and even challenges that help me grow day by day as a Christian.

If the history of a sacred book is not known, it can be compared to the other books as to what it teaches, and what we have been taught.  And also we can pray about it too.  Praying about something and receiving an answer from the Spirit.   I have done this with the Book of Mormon, and through trials and tests with this Book my answer from the Spirit is that the Book of Mormon is monotheistic and teaches about a God that has a pluralistic nature.

  

Quote

Well then what do you make of this statement?

Quote

Titus 1
2 In ahope of beternal life, which God, that cannot clie, dpromised before the world began; UAdd a Note
3 But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;

God will not lie to you when He tells you something.

Quote

Indeed - I think redemption is even a sub-theme of something else.  Redemption is a part of it, true - it is a great part of God's plan - but it is not all of it.  Indeed, I would not even classify the theme of the Bible as redemption - I would say the theme is God's Plan of Happiness.  Redemption is a part of it - a base of it - one thing which one must look at before understanding the whole.  I would say Redemption is the most important column holding up God's Plan save for sacrifice - I think sacrifice to be a more important and Godly column of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ's plan.

I see, you  and I are not too far off with this idea of the main part of God's Plan,considering the difficulties of an inner-faith discussion.

Quote

Well then, I say, there is no such thing as a full canon of God - God is not limited to the weakness of a canon.  He may use books to help, but no book is full of the truth of him.

Yes I would agree. But also when we have a collection of Books and we see a trend or teachings, and we see patterns and principles, we can use that as a standard to judge other writing that claim to be from God, and the meaning of certain impressions we get to determine if that impression is a revelation from God, or from some other source.

Quote

However, is not personal revelation more pure and perfect than the written word?  Is it not of more quality and help then the written word?  For though the written word may be changed, the Spirit of God is one and the same; always.

NO man may say that Jesus is the Christ but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Cor 12:3

Quote

I disagree.  God's heavenly plan is the operating system of the PC.  The GUI (graphical user interface) is controlled by the Holy Ghost, using a method in God's Heavenly Plan.  Now, on the side, there is an abbreviated version of what appears on the GUI - but it is in text - not in images.  It doesn't portray everything the GUI does.  On the other hand, it is much easier to reference than the GUI (it's more strenuous to store videos than text).  That is the written word aka the scriptures.  A part, but not the complete vision of the plan of God.  It is good to reference, but one should pay even more attention to the GUI, which can show in much greater depth the meaning behind the saved text.


Hmmm... I would say...

Mormons pay alot of attention to the GUI, and as of such, must pay less attention to the saved text.

Others pay attention to the saved text, but miss out on the fullness of the GUI.

I dunno 'bout you, but I'd rather look at a GUI than text.  Pictures are worth a thousand words.

Sounds like you are describing the Preparatory Gospel as opposed to the Fulness of the Gospel

Quote

Sorry dude, as said, I wasn't really wanting the answers, I was wanting you to think about the answers.  From thinking comes great ideas.

Thinking to the second party is a hidden activity.  Behaviors due to thinking can be seen and from those actions it is inferred what thinking is behind the behaviors.
Typing messages on an Internet Board and reading messages from others is a difficult means of communication.  Still the interchange can stimulate thinking.  So thanks for the message, I am thinking.  You must be thinking to in order to read and respond to what I have written.

[Vance]

I got an email regarding this topic which was very thought provoking.  It is going to take me some time to digest its contents. It has made me wonder.  Last time we wandered into RB-land. RB was very quick to run to the Greek when he thought it would give him an advantage.  This time Rob has studiously stayed with the English.  And so I wonder, why?

In Acts 2:28 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos" which if I am correct literal translated is "the gift of the holy spirit".

In Acts 10:45 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "h dwrea tou agiou pneumatos".

Although translated the same in English, they are different in Greek.  The difference is in the form of "gift" it is.  So here we have a situation that the "inerrant" meanings aren't being translated correctly.  The English reader is left with the mis-impression that these two different forms of gift are the same form of gift.  Rob is using this mis-impression to fabricate an unwarranted attack (no surprise there).

Just some food for thought.

Edited by Vance, 12 November 2010 - 08:51 AM.

[Hick Preacher]

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

I got an email regarding this topic which was very thought provoking.  It is going to take me some time to digest its contents. It has made me wonder.  Last time we wandered into RB-land. RB was very quick to run to the Greek when he thought it would give him an advantage.  This time Rob has studiously stayed with the English.  And so I wonder, why?

In Acts 2:28 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos" which if I am correct literal translated is "the gift of the holy spirit".

In Acts 10:45 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "h dwrea tou agiou pneumatos".

Although translated the same in English, they are different in Greek.  The difference is in the form of "gift" it is.  So here we have a situation that the "inerrant" meanings aren't being translated correctly.  The English reader is left with the mis-impression that these two different forms of gift are the same form of gift.  Rob is using this mis-impression to fabricate an unwarranted attack (no surprise there).

Just some food for thought.

Acts 2-
"thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos" which if I am correct literal translated is "the gift of the holy spirit".


May take on this from the Greek-

In Acts 10:45 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "h dwrea

This denotes different deliveries of the 'gift'--Acts 2 denotes a sacred formalized giving of a gift to an individual, (Acts 2) and the other(Acts 10) denotes being granted a gift in an informal way.

Edited by Hick Preacher, 12 November 2010 - 09:02 AM.

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 12 November 2010 - 09:00 AM, said:

Acts 2-
"thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos" which if I am correct literal translated is "the gift of the holy spirit".


May take on this from the Greek-

In Acts 10:45 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "h dwrea

This denotes different deliveries of the 'gift'--Acts 2 denotes a sacred formalized giving of a gift to an individual, (Acts 2) and the other(Acts 10) denotes being granted a gift in an informal way.

Thanks.

They are indeed different then. A difference that is lost in the translation.

[Rob Bowman]

rongo,

Let's start again. You offered the following quotation from Brigham Young:

Quote

When  he pleases to bless the children of men, he is able to accomplish his  purpose. If he is disposed to permit a Nebuchadnezzar to see a finger  writing on a wall, it is his privilege to do so. If he is disposed to  talk with an Enoch, or to show himself to the brother of Jared, it is  his privilege. And if he is disposed to pour out the Holy Ghost upon the  house of Cornelius before he embraced the Gospel in the usual way by  baptism for the remission of sins, it is his privilege. The principle  is, God must be obeyed. And even after Cornelius and his house had  received the Holy Ghost, they did not, like some in our day, rise up and  say, "We have no need to be baptized." Why did not Cornelius tell Peter  that he had received the Holy Ghost, and was as good a Christian as he?  But, no; he must send to Joppa for one Simon Peter, who would tell him  words whereby he and his household could be saved. What words? To be  baptized in water. Peter did not tell them to receive the Holy Ghost,  for they had received it.
They had already been endowed with the Holy Ghost, and it was the right  and privilege of him who laid down his life to redeem the children of  men to bestow that Holy Ghost where and when he pleased. If Cornelius  had refused to have been baptized, he never would have received the  influence of the Holy Ghost afterwards. He must obey the outward  ordinances to secure to himself eternal lives—to attain the blessings  consequent upon obedience. (Brigham Young, July 3, 1859. Journal of  Discourses 7:4)

In the above quote, there are two things that Brigham Young does not do. (1) He does not mention or comment on Joseph Smith's assertion that Cornelius and his household did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after they were baptized. (2) He does not mention or allude to the distinction between receiving the Holy Ghost and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, the above statements by Brigham Young do not address the issue I raised in this thread.

Next, you quote the following from Young:

Quote

Who  can say that the laying on of hands is not necessary for the reception  of the Holy Ghost? It is true that the house of Cornelius received the  Holy Ghost before the Gospel was preached unto them. But the Lord had a  special purpose in view in its bestowal in their case, namely, the  removal of the prejudice of Peter and his brethren, who, being Jews, and  full of the traditions of their fathers, thought that the  Gentiles—among whom Cornelius and his house were classed—were not  privileged to receive the Gospel. But the vision which Peter had on this  subject, and the message sent to him by Cornelius in obedience to the  command of the Lord in connection with the fact of the bestowal of the  Holy Ghost on Cornelius and his family was so convincing to Peter and  his brethren that the former was constrained to exclaim, "Can any man  forbid water that these should not be baptized, which have received the  Holy Ghost as well as we?" Some may say, "What was the necessity of  sending for Peter, one of the Apostles, when they had already received  the Holy Ghost?" The simple fact is this: there was nobody to baptize  Cornelius and his household, nobody to bury them with Christ in the  water; no one had authority to baptize them for the remission of their  sins; and consequently, although they had received the Holy Ghost, an  Apostle had to be sent for to administer that ordinance. And we read  further in relation to this case, that Peter "commanded them to be  baptized in the name of the Lord." Did any others receive the Holy Ghost  before baptism? None that we have any record of; but there is no doubt  that many who were worthy received it in a measure; but, whether in the  days of the Apostles or in our day, when the doctrine of baptism for the  remission of sins is preached by a servant of the Lord to persons who  have received the Holy Ghost, if they reject that doctrine the Holy  Ghost will withdraw from them for ever. (Brigham Young, July 17, 1870.  Journal of Discourses 13:214)

Same point as I made before. In addition, I would point out that Brigham Young was rather confused about what happened in Acts 10. Young asserts that "the house of Cornelius received the  Holy Ghost before the Gospel was preached unto them." That is incorrect. The household of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit before Peter had finished preaching the gospel to them (Acts 10:44). As Peter was still speaking, Cornelius and his family believed the gospel they were hearing and the Holy Spirit fell on them. Young says, "Some may say, 'What was the necessity of  sending for Peter, one of the Apostles, when they had already received  the Holy Ghost?' The simple fact is this: there was nobody to baptize  Cornelius and his household, nobody to bury them with Christ in the  water; no one had authority to baptize them for the remission of their  sins; and consequently, although they had received the Holy Ghost, an  Apostle had to be sent for to administer that ordinance." Here again, Young is completely wrong: Cornelius's household had not already received the Holy Spirit before Peter came to them, and Peter came to them not to administer ordinances to those who had already received the Holy Spirit but to preach the gospel to those who had not yet believed it or received the Holy Spirit. Cornelius sent emissaries to Peter not for him to come administer ordinances to him but so that they could "hear words from" Peter (10:22). Peter's message was not that God grants salvation to everyone who receives the right ordinances from the right people but that everyone who trusts in Jesus receives forgiveness of sins through his name (10:43).

You also quoted George Q. Cannon:

Quote

A  great many, to prove that baptism and laying on of hands are not  necessary, have cited the case of Cornelius, who, though he was not  baptized, received the Holy Ghost . . . and there were strong reasons  why it should be as it was with him. The Gospel and its ordinances were  administered only to the Jews; Cornelius was a Gentile, and between the  two races strong prejudices existed, the Jews looking upon the Gentiles  as far inferior to them. Cornelius and his household were the first  Gentiles to whom the Gospel was preached, they received it, and the  Lord, to show to the Apostles that the Gentiles were entitled to the  ordinances of salvation as well as the Jews, if they were willing to  comply with the requirements of the Gospel, conferred the Holy Ghost  upon Cornelius and his family. When Peter saw this family he said, "Of a  truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but in every  nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with  him." And when afterwards, he heard them speak with tongues and magnify  God, he said, "Can any man forbid water that these should not be  baptized which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he  commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Peter did not  say, Cornelius, you have received the Holy Ghost as well as we have, and  there is no necessity for you to obey any further ordinances, which,  under the circumstances, if he had considered baptism or the laying on  of hands non-essential, he would have been very likely to do; but  instead of that he commanded them to be baptized. Peter took this, as  the Lord intended it, as an evidence that the Gentiles as well as the  House of Israel were entitled to the Gospel. And he had them baptized,  and without doubt laid his hands upon them to confirm upon them the gift  they had received. Had Cornelius, at that hour, stood upon his dignity  and said, There is no necessity for me to be baptized for the remission  of my sins, God having given me the Holy Ghost without obeying that  ordinance, and having already received the Holy Ghost, I have no need to  have hands laid upon me, there is not a doubt in my mind but what that  precious and inestimable gift would have been withdrawn from him, and he  would not have enjoyed it after. It could only be continued to him on  condition of his obeying the ordinances which God had placed in his  Church and which he required all the inhabitants of the earth to submit  to without hesitation; and without doubt, Cornelius wisely went forward  and obeyed those ordinances.  (George Q. Cannon, August 15, 1869.  Journal of Discourses 14:50)

Same point as with both of the previous quotes: Cannon does not mention or allude to Joseph Smith's claim, nor does he mention or allude to Joseph's distinction between receiving the Holy Ghost and receiving the Holy Ghost. Therefore, Cannon's discourse does not address the difficulty I have raised in this thread.

You then quoted the following from Brigham Young:

Quote

We  read in the days of the Apostles of a certain man named Cornelius, a  devout man and one who worshipped the Lord according to the light he  possessed. As he was once praying in his house, the Holy Ghost fell upon  him, and he and his household rejoiced exceedingly. What was the word  of the Lord to Cornelius under these circumstances? Was it "You are  saved, you are just right, you can build up churches, you can show the  people that they can be saved, and can receive the Holy Ghost without  the laying on of hands?" No, the word of the Lord to Cornelius was,  "Send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter; he  lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the seaside; he shall  tell thee what thou oughtest to do." Cornelius sent to Joppa, and just  before his messengers reached the house at which Simon lodged, he had  had a vision in which a sheet descended from heaven, in which were all  manner of beasts and creeping things of the earth; and a voice said,  "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." But Peter said, "Not so, Lord, for I have  never eaten anything common or unclean." And the voice said unto him,  "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common." At that time the  Gospel had been given to the Jews only, and Peter and his brethren had  the idea that it was not for the Gentiles; but this vision was as much  as to say, "I want to open your eyes and show you that the Gentiles as  well as the Jews are to receive and participate in the blessings of the  Gospel." Just as Peter awoke from his vision there came a rap at the  door and the messengers of Cornelius inquired for him, and made known to  him their errand, and he and some of his brethren went down and  conversed with Cornelius, and while doing so the Spirit of God rested on  them so powerfully that they glorified God. The Jews who were with  Peter 100ommenced, "Take care, Peter, we do not like this; we do not  understand that the Gentiles are to have the Gospel. The Savior is the  Savior of the Jews; Jesus was the king of the Jews only and not the king  of the Gentiles." Peter 100ommanded them to be still. Said he, "Do you  not see the pouring out of the Spirit just as on the Day of Pentecost,  these people speaking with new tongues and prophecying;" and said he,  seeing that this is the case, "Can any man forbid water that these  should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as  we." Cornelius, if he had rejected the testimony of Peter, would have  been led to reject the Holy Ghost, which had fallen upon him, and been  lost. This was an instance in which the Holy Ghost was given before  baptism; there may be other cases in these days, but if parties are thus  favored of the Lord, the outpouring of his Spirit prompts them to send  for an Elder of Israel that they may be baptized for the remission of  their sins. I do not know that it is recorded that Cornelius received a  remission of sins before baptism.  (Brigham Young, May 21, 1871. Journal  of Discourses 14:134)

Same problem as with all of the other quotations; this one does not address the specific issue I raised. In addition, Young offers the baseless speculation that Cornelius might not have received a remission of sins before his baptism.

Finally, you offered the following quotation from Orson Pratt (whom Mormons apparently are allowed to quote, but not their critics):

Quote

The  gifts which I have been describing are the effects of the Holy Ghost.  Now we hear almost every society praying the Lord to send the Holy  Ghost. Their cry is, "Let the Holy Ghost come down upon us now; let it  be with us this very moment; let us have its influence and enjoy its  operations now." But they know nothing about it; they have never  received the Holy Ghost, neither can they until they comply with the  Gospel ordinances—repent of their sins and be baptized for their  remission. "But," says one, "do not you remember good old Cornelius? was  he baptized?" No, he received the Holy Ghost before baptism. But had he  any promise of it before? No. The Lord, on that occasion, had a special  object in view, which is named in the history of the transaction.  Cornelius seems to have been the first Gentile, whom the Apostle Peter  1n opening the door of the Gospel to the Gentiles, was commanded to  visit. The Jewish nation was exceedingly prejudiced against the  Gentiles. Peter happened to have six proselytes from the Jewish nation  with him on that occasion. Oh, how bitter they were against the  Gentiles! They thought the Gentiles had no part or lot in the matter;  and notwithstanding the commission that the Lord had given to the  Apostles he had to work a miracle to convince Peter, so strong were the  prejudices of the Jews that the Holy Ghost and the Gospel blessings were  not for the Gentiles. You recollect Peter's vision, in which the Lord  let down a sheet by the four corners, full of all manner of beasts,  clean and unclean, and Peter being commanded to arise, slay and eat; and  his not being willing to do it because it was contrary to the law of  Moses. But he was told that the Lord had cleansed the contents of the  sheet, and he was forbidden on that account to call it common or  unclean. You recollect that the Lord sent an angel, as he always does  when he has a Church on the earth, to a certain man called Cornelius.  This man had been praying, he wanted to know how to be saved. The Lord  had heard his prayers, and had sent an angel to him, and the angel said  to him, "Cornelius, thy prayers are heard, and have come up before the  Lord as a memorial. Now send to Joppa for one Simon, whose surname is  Peter, and he will tell you words whereby you and your house will be  saved." What! Cornelius not in a state of salvation, and he a praying  man? No doubt he was in a state of salvation, so far as he understood;  but he was ignorant and did not understand how to get into the celestial  kingdom. He knew nothing about the birth of the water and of the  Spirit, that we heard about this forenoon, without which no man can  enter into the kingdom of God. Yet he had given much alms, and his  prayers had come up as a memorial before God, and the Lord had pity on  his ignorance and sent an angel to him. But the angel did not see proper  to tell him what to do to get into a more full state of conversion; he  simply told him to send for Peter—a man of God, promising him that he  would tell him how to be saved. Peter, being warned beforehand, by the  vision, went down to the house of Cornelius, nothing doubting, taking  these six Jewish converts with him, full of all their Jewish prejudices.  When Cornelius had given an account of the visit of the angel to him,  Peter began to preach Christ and him crucified, and while he was  speaking the Holy Ghost fell on Cornelius and his household, and they  spake with tongues and magnified God. Do you suppose that the Holy  Spirit could have been retained by Cornelius supposing he had refused to  obey the ordinances of the Gospel? No, it was only given as a witness  and testimony to convince the Jewish brethren, who were with Peter, that  the Gentiles might have salvation as well as the Jews; for when they  began to speak in tongues, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, Peter  turned to his Jewish brethren, and said, "Who can forbid water that  these should not be baptized?" and he commanded them, in the name of the  Lord Jesus, to be baptized. What, a command? Yes. Had Peter the right  to give that command? Yes; for the angel of the Lord had said to  Cornelius, "He shall tell you words whereby you and your house shall be  saved," and his command to them to be baptized was some of his words  unto them. Supposing that Cornelius had said, "Oh, baptism is not  essential, it is not among the fundamental principles of salvation; it  is one of the non-essential, outward ordinances, etc., and is of no  consequence, I have received the Holy Ghost, I am a Christian, I believe  in your words; I have offered my alms to the poor, and they have come  up before the Lord; I am good enough, there is no need for me to be  baptized," how long would the Holy Ghost have remained with him? Just  the moment that he had refused to obey this commandment the Holy Ghost  would have fled from him and his house. The only way for him to retain  the gift that comes through obedience was to be baptized, though on that  occasion it was given without promise, and without baptism. Baptism,  recollect, is for the remission of sins, and the Holy Ghost comes  afterwards; but on this occasion it was given before it; but he could  not have retained it, it would have left him, and he would have been in  seven-fold greater darkness than before had he refused to obey the words  of this inspired messenger. The Jewish brethren could not forbid water  after the manifestation of the power of God on that occasion; their  prejudices were done away by a miracle. Now, because the Lord varied on  that one occasion and gave the Holy Ghost before baptism, how many there  are who want to do away with baptism, and to seek some other way for  those who are convicted and laboring under a feeling of sorrow and  mourning for their sins; but there is an ordinance connected with the  receiving of the Holy Ghost. If there is an ordinance connected with the  baptism of water, so there is in relation to the higher baptism; and  the Lord made his servants, the Apostles, ministers not only of the  word, but also of the Spirit. They were able ministers of the Spirit;  that is, they had authority to administer the Spirit. They could not do  it of themselves; but when God calls a man and gives him authority by  revelation and sends him to preach his Gospel, and people listen to that  Gospel and are willing to be baptized, that man has the right to  baptize them; and if he is ordained to the Apostleship or to those  offices that have the power to administer the higher ordinance of the  laying on of hands, and he lays hands on, God will acknowledge that  ordinance. He will acknowledge baptism by giving remission of sins; and  he will acknowledge the laying on of hands by sending from heaven the  gift of the Holy Ghost. (Orson Pratt, June 18, 1871. Journal of  Discourses 14:182)

Here again, Pratt does not discuss Joseph Smith's statement or his distinction between receiving the Holy Ghost and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Therefore, Pratt's comments here are also not relevant to the problem I have presented.

You have made a decent case, by the way, that Joseph Smith's view was ignored or forgotten for at least a few decades after 1842. It would be interesting to do further research to see if anyone during Young's tenure as president affirmed Joseph's view. The above quotes do not even mention it. In any case, the current view of the LDS Church is Joseph's view, not Brigham's view, and Brigham and his associates quoted above apparently never commented specifically on Joseph's view or showed any awareness of it.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 12 November 2010 - 09:28 AM.

[Zakuska]

cdowis, on 12 November 2010 - 08:43 AM, said:

I'm finished.

When I post something, you need to wait at least ten minutes for the paint to dry.

Ditto!

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 10 November 2010 - 01:58 PM, said:

Acts 10, however, says the opposite: that Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized:

"While Peter was still saying these things, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word. And the believers from among the circumcised who had come with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the Gentiles. For they were hearing them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:44-48, emphasis added).

We have just learned that the gift spoken of here is an "informal" gift.  A different kind of gift from the "sacred formalized" gift referred to in Act 2, that comes after (sacred formalized?) baptism.

Rob's argument has fallen to pieces.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Rank amateurs should be cautious about pretending to understand something they don't. In this instance, your ignorance is on full display. The expressions THN DWREAN and hH DWREA are exactly the same words in Greek, "the gift." The only difference is grammatical case spellings: THN DWREA is in the accusative case because it is the direct object, while hH DWREA is in the nominative case because it is the subject. We don't spell "gift" differently when it is the direct object instead of the subject, but Greek must do so (the technical term is inflection).

Vance, on 12 November 2010 - 08:50 AM, said:

I got an email regarding this topic which was very thought provoking.  It is going to take me some time to digest its contents. It has made me wonder.  Last time we wandered into RB-land. RB was very quick to run to the Greek when he thought it would give him an advantage.  This time Rob has studiously stayed with the English.  And so I wonder, why?

In Acts 2:28 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatos" which if I am correct literal translated is "the gift of the holy spirit".

In Acts 10:45 "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is translated from "h dwrea tou agiou pneumatos".

Although translated the same in English, they are different in Greek.  The difference is in the form of "gift" it is.  So here we have a situation that the "inerrant" meanings aren't being translated correctly.  The English reader is left with the mis-impression that these two different forms of gift are the same form of gift.  Rob is using this mis-impression to fabricate an unwarranted attack (no surprise there).

Just some food for thought.