Did Cornelius receive the gift of the Holy Spirit before he was baptized?

[Lightbearer]

Lightbearer,

Typical ad hominem: instead of addressing my argument, you dismiss what i say because I'm not part of your religion. I know some of your brethren here wince with embarrassment at this sort of tactic.

Actually I did address your argument, yet as per usual you ignored it... as for ad hominem, you should know very much since you gave your own ad hominem tirade against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church in general. I dismiss what you say not because you are not part of my religion but your objection is not valid.

Of course not. I agree with what Jesus said in the Gospel of John. But this has nothing to do with the fact that Joseph Smith claimed that Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized, when Luke plainly says he received that gift before he was baptized.

Why does it (the quote in John) have nothing to do with the fact that Joseph stated correctly that Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after baptism. I would ask why the "world cannot recieve" the gift of the Holy Ghost? Or can they? I find it interesting that those who deny modern revelation are always trying to quibble over the meanings of phrases of words in the scriptures. Why did Peter direct Cornelius to be baptized after "receiving the Holy Ghost"? Why was it necessary? Was it necessary? Why did Jesus commission the Apostles to go and preach and he that believeth were to be baptized? Was there ever an instance when someone was not required to be baptized in the New Testament?

That is exactly what Acts 10:44-48 reveals is not what is necessary to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. And look, for centuries Christians repented of their sins, had faith in Jesus Christ, and were baptized, without the LDS Church and its priesthood. Were those people who sincerely repented and believed in Christ unworthy of the gift of the Holy Ghost? I think you'll have a hard time making a plausible case that they were all unworthy. On the other hand, if at least some of them were not unworthy of the gift, why didn't Christ restore the priesthood to the earth sooner so they could receive the gift?

Please, give men a break, the same priesthood of the ancient apostles Peter, James, and John is the same priesthood conferred on Joseph Smith and your attempts at trying to cast the LDS Church as a seperate thing from the former day Church is just an attempt to discredit the church. You also know full well the teachings of the Church about the apostacy of the former day Church and those who have faith in this life will also have faith in the next and will have an opportunity to receive the ordinances by proxy. I find it much more plausible than the idea that the Church was not "driven into the wilderness" and lost from mortals for hundreds of years.

Since you completely ignored my argument, engaged in an ad hominem criticism of me instead of my argument, and wrapped up your post by impugning my motives, I would dare to suggest that perhaps you are the one who is trying to score rhetorical points instead of engaging the issue at hand.

I am trying to prove that your weak claim from Luke is totally without merit. Of course you totally have ignored my argument, so we are talking past each other, and this is a rhetorical argument, I am just proclaiming the truth as understood by members of the LDS Church, you may consider my attempt at defending my beliefs and my church against your attacks, but you have not answered my rebuttal. In case you have forgotten I repeat the quote here:

(John 14:16-26) "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you."

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

You wrote:

Yes. I had to misspell it or else it would be edited out.

I see. Well, your rather colorful description more reasonably applies to the Mormons on this forum who are desperately trying to scrutinize the language to justify distinctions between receiving the Holy Spirit and being given the gift of the Holy Spirit, or between receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (sense #1) and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (sense #2), and the like.

You wrote:

Yes. No. The sun pours light on you, but you don

[Zeta-Flux]

Yes. No. The sun pours light on you, but you don

[Zeta-Flux]

Rob, you said: "Are you claiming that there is no significance to the fact that the Mormons participating in this thread have offered some half dozen explanations for the discrepancy between Acts 10 and Joseph Smith, none of which have included the possibility that Joseph flubbed?" What specifically do you think Joseph flubbed. I agree with you that the wording Joseph used and that used in Acts 10 is not parallel (i.e. there is a discrepancy) but what doctrine did Joseph teach that is at odds with Acts 10?

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

You wrote:

Actually I did address your argument, yet as per usual you ignored it...

Quoting a passage in John, which does not refer to people receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, does nothing to address the issue I raised in the opening post, let alone to address the argument I presented. You tried to support your use of this passage as follows:

Why does it (the quote in John) have nothing to do with the fact that Joseph stated correctly that Cornelius did not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after baptism. I would ask why the "world cannot recieve" the gift of the Holy Ghost? Or can they? I find it interesting that those who deny modern revelation are always trying to quibble over the meanings of phrases of words in the scriptures. Why did Peter direct Cornelius to be baptized after "receiving the Holy Ghost"? Why was it necessary? Was it necessary? Why did Jesus commission the Apostles to go and preach and he that believeth were to be baptized? Was there ever an instance when someone was not required to be baptized in the New Testament?

I haven't argued that baptism is unnecessary or that it is not required. I have argued that baptism is not necessary or required before receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit.

You wrote:

...as for ad hominem, you should know very much since you gave your own ad hominem tirade against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church in general.

CFR that I engaged in an "ad hominem tirade against the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Church in general." My guess is that your answer, if you give one, will demonstrate that you do not know what an ad hominem fallacy is. Criticizing someone's claim to be a prophet is not an ad hominem attack.

I asked you: "And look, for centuries Christians repented of their sins, had faith in Jesus Christ, and were baptized, without the LDS Church and its priesthood. Were those people who sincerely repented and believed in Christ unworthy of the gift of the Holy Ghost? I think you'll have a hard time making a plausible case that they were all unworthy. On the other hand, if at least some of them were not unworthy of the gift, why didn't Christ restore the priesthood to the earth sooner so they could receive the gift?" You replied:

Please, give men a break, the same priesthood of the ancient apostles Peter, James, and John is the same priesthood conferred on Joseph Smith and your attempts at trying to cast the LDS Church as a seperate thing from the former day Church is just an attempt to discredit the church. You also know full well the teachings of the Church about the apostacy of the former day Church and those who have faith in this life will also have faith in the next and will have an opportunity to receive the ordinances by proxy. I find it much more plausible than the idea that the Church was not "driven into the wilderness" and lost from mortals for hundreds of years.

If there was an answer to my question there, I missed it. I am aware of the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy. However, you have not answered my question. To make it easier for you, I will break it up into simpler questions. Question #1: In your opinion, were there any sincere people who repented of their sins and believed in Christ between, say, AD 120 and 1820?

[Rob Bowman]

Zeta-Flux,

Joseph taught that a person cannot receive the gift of the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit without being baptized and having hands laid on you by someone with priesthood authority. He defined the biblical expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" to mean the imparting of this constant companionship of the Holy Spirit. However, Acts 10 reveals that people can receive "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before being baptized. Therefore, this passage conflicts with Joseph's sacerdotal view of how one receives the permanent companionship of the Holy Spirit.

Rob, you said: "Are you claiming that there is no significance to the fact that the Mormons participating in this thread have offered some half dozen explanations for the discrepancy between Acts 10 and Joseph Smith, none of which have included the possibility that Joseph flubbed?" What specifically do you think Joseph flubbed. I agree with you that the wording Joseph used and that used in Acts 10 is not parallel (i.e. there is a discrepancy) but what doctrine did Joseph teach that is at odds with Acts 10?

[PacMan]

Rob,

Well, your rather colorful description more reasonably applies to the Mormons on this forum who are desperately trying to scrutinize the language to justify distinctions between receiving the Holy Spirit and being given the gift of the Holy Spirit, or between receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (sense #1) and receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit (sense #2), and the like.

You mean, following the text?

The text says explicitly that they got the Holy Spirit, the same gift that God had given the Jewish disciples.

I have now concluded that from the abundant evidence from this thread, that you do not know what

[PacMan]

The word "received" is used in Acts 10:47. While I don't think Rob's reading is the only one possible, it isn't so easily dismissed as that.

Except there, it's not speaking of "the gift."

PacMan

[PacMan]

By the way Rob, and putting semantics aside, one of your complete incongruities is to peg what YOU believe Joseph as saying. You could find a number of his quotes similar to baptism: That there's a necessary form, etc. for it to be efficacious. But we (and Joseph) do not doubt the baptism of the children of Egypt as they descended into the dead sea. Simply because one thing is a rule, does not preclude exceptions. Frankly, I don't know what was given in Acts. The semantics don't get you to your conclusion, but it certainly makes sense. But it doesn't matter. Not any more than effectuating baptisms for a hoard of people by marching them on dry ground.

Don't be so narrow-minded as precluding a belief that God is the giver of the law and can administer it as he sees fit. There's no falsity . . . just your over exuberance of straining at gnats.

PacMan

[zerinus]

I asked you: "And look, for centuries Christians repented of their sins, had faith in Jesus Christ, and were baptized, without the LDS Church and its priesthood. Were those people who sincerely repented and believed in Christ unworthy of the gift of the Holy Ghost? I think you'll have a hard time making a plausible case that they were all unworthy. On the other hand, if at least some of them were not unworthy of the gift, why didn't Christ restore the priesthood to the earth sooner so they could receive the gift?" You replied:

If there was an answer to my question there, I missed it. I am aware of the LDS doctrine of the Great Apostasy. However, you have not answered my question. To make it easier for you, I will break it up into simpler questions. Question #1: In your opinion, were there any sincere people who repented of their sins and believed in Christ between, say, AD 120 and 1820?

Of course there were. But your follow-up question:

[Zeta-Flux]

Zeta-Flux,

Joseph taught that a person cannot receive the gift of the constant companionship of the Holy Spirit without being baptized and having hands laid on you by someone with priesthood authority.

I agree he taught that.

He defined the biblical expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" to mean the imparting of this constant companionship of the Holy Spirit.

I don't think he ever said that every time the Bible uses that expression, that is what it is talking about. Can you point out where Joseph specifically defined the *biblical* expression to mean that?

However, Acts 10 reveals that people can receive "the gift of the Holy Spirit" before being baptized. Therefore, this passage conflicts with Joseph's sacerdotal view of how one receives the permanent companionship of the Holy Spirit.

I'll wait on you to demonstrate that Joseph equated his use of the phrase "gift of the Holy Ghost" with every instance of that same phrase in the Bible.

[Rob Bowman]

Zeta-Flux,

You wrote:

I don't think he ever said that every time the Bible uses that expression, that is what it is talking about. Can you point out where Joseph specifically defined the *biblical* expression to mean that? ... I'll wait on you to demonstrate that Joseph equated his use of the phrase "gift of the Holy Ghost" with every instance of that same phrase in the Bible.

It only appears twice in the Bible, in Acts 2:38 and 10:45, and Joseph was commenting on Acts 10. How could he not have meant to be referring to its meaning in that text?

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

My question presupposes for the sake of argument the LDS claim that it was Christ's intention that the church should always have apostles and prophets. If that claim is correct, then it isn't the fault of the Christians between 120 and 1820 that the church was apostate and ceased to exist on the earth. Rather, if the LDS claim is correct, it would seem that it was God's own doing that the church ceased to exist on the earth. You seem to concede that point.

I have to agree with you that the Mormon responses to the problem I raised about Acts 10 have been muddled. Where I would disagree with you is in exempting you from that muddle.

Finally, I see that you are willing to add yet another possible explanation to the pile, namely, that Joseph's comments have not been recorded accurately. You are once again confirming my observation that the Mormons in this discussion so far have been willing to entertain almost any explanation other than that Joseph himself was wrong.

Of course there were. But your follow-up question:

[Ahab]

... I see that you are willing to add yet another possible explanation to the pile, namely, that Joseph's comments have not been recorded accurately. You are once again confirming my observation that the Mormons in this discussion so far have been willing to entertain almost any explanation other than that Joseph himself was wrong.

I think the reason most (if not all) of us won't add that one to the pile is because we know Joseph well enough to know he didn't mean Cornelius didn't receive any gift at all from the Holy Ghost, even prior to his baptism.

Cornelius did receive "a" gift from the Holy Ghost, and the one he received from the Holy Ghost was truly one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost that he did receive, although Cornelius still needed to receive "the" gift of the Holy Ghost we (LDS) and some other Chrisitans refer to as "the" gift of the Holy Ghost new converts to the Church are commanded and expected to receive which comes after the laying on of hands by those with God's authority.

[Hick Preacher]

Arab noted-

Cornelius did receive "a" gift from the Holy Ghost, and the one he received from the Holy Ghost was truly one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost that he did receive, although Cornelius still needed to receive "the" gift of the Holy Ghost we (LDS) and some other Chrisitans refer to as "the" gift of the Holy Ghost new converts to the Church are commanded and expected to receive which comes after the laying on of hands by those with God's authority.

We all know that the Mormon Church believes that a universal Apostasy took place anciently, and that as a consequence, a special kind of Gift of the Holy Ghost a became extinct due to the loss of the Melchizidic priesthood. This loss of priesthood is believed to also result in the degeneration of Church structure, as the

[cdowis]

Hickpreacher,

Good post.

[Vance]

In Mormonism having the Priesthood in everything so far as understanding saving religious knowledge is concerned.

Your misunderstanding of those quotes results in your attempt to tell us what we believe to be wrong.

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention. One doesn't need to have the "gift of the Holy Ghost" bestowed by the Melchizedek Priesthood to receive revelation.

Knowledge gained by an individual members is thought to be facilitated by the Priesthood, and its processes and ordinances.

"Facilitated", yes. Required, no.

For this reason, a Priesthood as a management system controls the means by which knowledge is imparted, (that knowledge then coming by the Gift of the Holy Ghost).

False. We want people to receive knowledge from the Holy Ghost PRIOR to joining the church.

Knowledge is imparted by the Holy Ghost. The scriptures are clear on this. You surprise me with this garbage.

This is a huge claim of Mormonism with grandiose implications.

If it were true, but it isn't.

Edited to add,

Excepting this sever disagreement, I found your post interesting.

[Ahab]

Hickpreacher,

Good post.

Mine was better, and deserving of a rep point, or two.

I feel cheated.

[Vance]

My question presupposes for the sake of argument the LDS claim that it was Christ's intention that the church should always have apostles and prophets.

A reasonable presupposition.

If that claim is correct, then it isn't the fault of the Christians between 120 and 1820 that the church was apostate and ceased to exist on the earth.

Partially true. The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles. After this initial rejection and loss of truth and authority, then no fault can be placed on those that followed.

Rather, if the LDS claim is correct, it would seem that it was God's own doing that the church ceased to exist on the earth.

God doesn't force people to accept Him. So He waited until the time was right to restore the fullness.

[Hick Preacher]

Your misunderstanding of those quotes results in your attempt to tell us what we believe to be wrong.

Apparently, you haven't been paying attention. One doesn't need to have the "gift of the Holy Ghost" bestowed by the Melchizedek Priesthood to receive revelation.

"Facilitated", yes. Required, no.

False. We want people to receive knowledge from the Holy Ghost PRIOR to joining the church.

Knowledge is imparted by the Holy Ghost. The scriptures are clear on this. You surprise me with this garbage.

If it were true, but it isn't.

Edited to add,

Excepting this sever disagreement, I found your post interesting.

According to the LDS teachings, how much saving knowledge can a person get, if they do not have the LOH Gift of the Holy Ghost? Can they be saved in the celestial kingdom and achieve godhood it they do not get the LOH Gift of the Holy Ghost?

Added note:

I am approaching the Gift of the Holy Ghost as a bringer of knowledge, and the Priesthood as its manager.

[Ahab]

God doesn't force people to accept Him. So He waited until the time was right to restore the fullness.

... and during the wait some people got the idea that since there weren't any more apostles living on the Earth that meant we don't need them any more.

Oops!

Thankfully misconceptions can be corrected.

[Hick Preacher]

Mine was better, and deserving of a rep point, or two.

I feel cheated.

one point then-

Hick-

[Vance]

According to the LDS teachings, how much saving knowledge can a person get, if they do not have the LOH Gift of the Holy Ghost?

I don't think that is the right question to ask. To me the question should be "when does the acquisition of saving knowledge begin?"

Can they be saved in the celestial kingdom and achieve godhood itf they do not get the LOH Gift of the Holy Ghost?

No. But for most of the people that have lived so far, that won't occur while in mortality. We can only assume that the Holy Ghost operates in the spirit world in the same fashion as in this world. By the end of the Millennium, everyone will have received the "LOH Gift of the Holy Ghost, either in person or by proxy.

I am approaching the Gift of the Holy Ghost as a bringer of knowledge, and the Priesthood as its manager.

I don't think that is an accurate approach.

The Holy Ghost is the bringer of knowledge and truth. The gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to a constant companionship of the Holy Ghost for the worthy.

The Melchizedek Priesthood is the dispenser of that right.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

As I have already pointed out, Luke says that Cornelius had given to him "the" gift of the Holy Spirit, not one of the gifts or a gift of the Holy Spirit.

I think the reason most (if not all) of us won't add that one to the pile is because we know Joseph well enough to know he didn't mean Cornelius didn't receive any gift at all from the Holy Ghost, even prior to his baptism.

Cornelius did receive "a" gift from the Holy Ghost, and the one he received from the Holy Ghost was truly one of the gifts of the Holy Ghost that he did receive, although Cornelius still needed to receive "the" gift of the Holy Ghost we (LDS) and some other Chrisitans refer to as "the" gift of the Holy Ghost new converts to the Church are commanded and expected to receive which comes after the laying on of hands by those with God's authority.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

The apostasy occurred because the people as a whole, rejected and murdered the apostles. After this initial rejection and loss of truth and authority, then no fault can be placed on those that followed.

There is an ambiguity in your language (common on this point in LDS explanations that I have observed) that I would like to see cleared up. What do you mean by "the people as a whole"? Do you mean people in general in the Hellenistic world of the late first century? Do you mean the people of the Christian movement of the late first century? You know, there is not a single recorded instance of anyone professing to be a Christian murdering any of the apostles. So, your only reasonable clarification would seem to be that by "the people as a whole" you mean unbelievers, people who didn't even claim to be Christians, and thus the unbelieving people of the world in general. This explanation has its own set of problems, but I invite you to offer whatever clarification you want.

You wrote:

God doesn't force people to accept Him. So He waited until the time was right to restore the fullness.

This statement seems to presuppose that had God tried to restore the church before 1830, he would have had to force people to accept Him. I thought we agreed that the Christians of the Great Apostasy period ca. 120-1820 were not at fault. Now you seem to be suggesting that God could not have found a hospitable group of people to accept the Restoration prior to 1830.

Good luck coming up with a coherent account on this issue. I've never seen one.