339 replies to this topic

[PacMan]

Hick

Quote

God knowing all things withheld the Gift until Peter and John arrived.

I don’t find it a good explanation to paint oneself into a corner and then leave it to the mysteries of God.  The reason was simply: the apostles had the authority to administer the laying on of hands.  I think it’s that’s simple.

Quote

Hebrews 5:4 reads- 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Notice the word CALLED.

And how was that calling given?  A calling is not being sent.  The Lord can certainly send us to help the poor, save the sick, etc.  That doesn’t mean we are authoritatively called to have “honor.”  The only way the honor is passed – i.e. the calling is given – is through the laying on of hands, per Num.

Quote

Aaron was anointed with Oil, but Jesus being called as in Hebrews 5:4 was anointed by the Holy Ghost. Aaron had hands laid upon him for an ordination, but Jesus had the Holy Ghost descend upon him in the form of a dove.

First, I missed that citation.  Acts 10:38 says nothing of the Holy Ghost doing the annointing.  Well, no more than “power” doing the annointing.  Second, the Holy Ghost  had nothing to add to Jesus (kind of hard to need something additional if you’re God, right?)  It was a witness to those in attendance.  You’ve completely conflated things.  Jesus didn’t need the gift of the Holy Ghost when he had correspondence with the Father.  Again, you’ve completely dismissed Numbers and the laying on of hands for Joshua’s ordination, by which his honor was received.

The other problem with your argument is that it completely reduces Hebrews 5 to nonsense.  If God just talks to people and calls them, then why reference anything from Aaron?  The answer is simple: Because Aaron Levitical priesthood, though changed, still held the appropriate practice and procedure.  I don’t understand how that’s debatable.

Quote

The kings, priests and prophets of the Old Testament were anointed with oil and most always only afterwards did they receive Power through the Holy Spirit that came upon them. Jesus on the other hand, was anointed because the Holy Spirit had come upon Him. Jesus was ‘the anointed one’ – ‘the Christ’ in that manner. This is why Jesus is The Christ. This is why Christians have accepted the nick-name “Christian’.

For the record, the Father is the one that anointed him.  Not the Holy Ghost.

Quote

You seem to be confusing the difference between the essentials of how God works, and how cultures use didactic devices to communicate God’s message. You seem to think that God's plan and will for humanity will fall apart unless only one kind of formula is in place. The Holy Ghost is God, and can well choose and is able to operate the affairs of the Church in His own orderly way, weather we know how it is working or not.

Except when it doesn’t work because of terrible disorder.  There are so many “brands” of Christianity that it impossible to say there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.”  As such, the organization of the early church wasn’t for fun.  It was to create a structure upon which people could rely, and was intended to exist until all were “unified in the faith.”  You can’t proof-text that away.  The fact that there were practices used, it is not left to you to call them “didactic devices.”  To so cast them aside as unnecessary is to undermine the Apostles and Prophets chosen by the Lord himself.

Quote

Your thinking mistakes the meaning of

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,...

Really?  And you come to this conclusion…with no other answer.  Right.

Quote

I would not say a Christian receiving an anointing from God is some kind of casual or cheap occurrence.

From your comments, it would seem that you do not have a fundamental idea the roles and functions of rituals and ceremony in religious systems, culture and the development of human civilizations.

I do understand them.  But more importantly, I understand their importance in early Christian civilization.  The old law had been turned on its head.  Gentiles were baptized, and all the laws were summarily reduced to two.  There was no reason to adopt the adulterous practices of the pagans or any other culture.  The Apostles referencing the past practice in current use was purposeful, meaningful, and you haven’t the authority to wrest the scripture to make any other interpretation.

I must note that your interpretation begs a disastrous slippery slope.  To pick and chose what it liked and not, and those things that are not, to simply chalk it up to mysteries of god or cultural uses?  That is an adulteration of the scripture.

Quote

Mormonism is one of those religions that relies heavily on its Priesthoods and ritual.

Other systems however have other communicative devices, such as preaching, creeds and other traditions, to transfer, impart, and teach sacred information, and put its ideas to work in the world.

Funny how our system most closely mirrors that of Christ’s established church, doesn’t it?



PacMan

[PacMan]

Rob,

Quote

Yet you do claim that there is a pattern and that deviations from that pattern are "exceptions." You are therefore trying to have your pattern and eat it too.

Not any more than Paul or Jesus did.  

For example, baptism (or immersion) by water is necessary for salvation.  The practice is rather clear and I doubt we disagree on this point.  Yet Paul in 1 Cor. 10:1-4 tells of how the children of Moses were baptized while walking on dry ground.  And Jesus?  Ox and the mire should suffice.  What is certain is that there are rules.  And insomuch as Jesus followed the Mosaic law – which he gave – he also understood it.  But it was he, and not the Pharisees, that provided the exceptions.  Where his Apostles and Prophets have shown the pattern, we should be loathe to ignore it.

Quote

No, the rule is the teaching of the prophets and apostles, not their "examples," where there "examples" do not demonstrate any uniformity or necessity.

And you are seriously contending that their examples are not teachings?  So anything they DID should we toss for what they TAUGHT?  You’re kidding right?  I can hardly think of a better teaching method then, well, showing.  The fact that certain things, such as laying on of hands, were done time and time again and included in both the gospel narratives and various Epistles is more than sufficient evidence that there is both uniformity and necessity when it comes to the practice of the church.  I can't comprehend how you can come to any other conclusion.

Quote

I have yet to see this demonstrated. There are six instances in the book of Acts of people receiving the Holy Spirit. Please show me this pattern.

The pattern of laying on of hands is quite sufficient, I think.  Not to mention the pattern of having living Apostles and Prophets which not only was “shown,” but “taught” without any room for interpretation.  (Read Ephesians 4:11-14.  Have we “all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God?”  Didn’t think so.  So, where are yours?

PacMan

Edited by PacMan, 23 November 2010 - 04:29 PM.

[zerinus]

Hick Preacher, on 23 November 2010 - 03:32 PM, said:

The LDS system claims unconditional salvation with out any of these sacraments.

False.

[PacMan]

zerinus, on 23 November 2010 - 04:33 PM, said:

False.

And Hick knew about the Church's practices?  I seem to remember Brigham saying responding to the question of whether non-mormons are going to hell.  "Yes, and many members of the church if they don't humble themselves and repent."  I don't know where Hick is getting his info, but his source is lacking.

PacMan

[LeSellers]

Hick Preacher, on 23 November 2010 - 03:52 PM, said:

The point is that it does not appear to be evidence enough to verify that there is only one process of ritual by which people have gotten the Holy Ghost.

"Gotten the Holy Ghost" is confusing because, as others have already noted, there is a distinct difference between "the Holy Ghost" and "the Gift of the Holy Ghost".

But that's not the only ambiguity. "The gift of the Holy Ghost" may or may not mean the same thing every time it's used. Others have pointed that out, as well.

But the Gift of the Holy Ghost is received in but one way: by the laying on of hands by one who is in authority to administer this ordinance.

Hick Preacher said:

There are people before 1830 who were inspired, why would anyone doubt that?

We certainly do not because we know of at least one at least a decade earlier who did.

It is also doctrine that many others were inspired of the Holy Ghost, not least of whom were the Founding Fathers of this nation (USmerica), the Reformers, Columbus (among other discovers), and most of the first twenty or so Presidents of the united States of America. These "wise men", we believe, were "raised up" especially to fill the offices they did.

While all of this is absolutely true, it is important to note that they received inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but not the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This they (and anyone else who desires it) will receive by proxy in the Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (most have already done so).

Lehi

[Hick Preacher]

PacMan in quotes-

Quote

<<<I don’t find it a good explanation to paint oneself into a corner and then leave it to the mysteries of God. The reason was simply: the apostles had the authority to administer the laying on of hands. I think it’s that’s simple.>>>

Agreed they had the authority to lay on hands. And Peter and John had the other kinds of recognized authority from Jerusalem that came with them in addition to the laying on their hand that was important to convey. And this authority in being from Jerusalem, the capital of the Jews, was something something that Philip did not have.

The ‘extra’ authority of John and Peter can be compared to the kind of authority that the heads of corporations hold when they visit a branch office to enforce a corporate policy.  It was at least organizational, it is also cultural, and those kinds of authority are important.
  
There is little doubt that Philip also had authority to lay hands on people too. Philip lacked certain administrative authority that was held by Peter and John, that all could recognize as tying the Samaritans to the Church in Jerusalam.  

And Paul fully being an Apostle, also had authority to lay on hands, and did so, and Paul had the authority to baptize. But Paul did not always go out and baptize, but went out to preach.
1Co 1:17  For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:

(on Hebrews 5:4 )

Quote

<<<And how was that calling given? A calling is not being sent. >>>

Yes you could draw this distinction, but in Aaron’s case he was called by God face to face and then sent to Moses by God. Again this is recorded in  Exodus Chapter 4 where Aaron was called, then sent by a direct command personally from God. Aaron was personally approached by God to perform a task. Just because the word ‘called’ is not used to describe the event of his calling does not change the fact.  

Aaron was foreordained for this calling, as we can see the ancestors of his clan also performed in a similar role.  

In context to Aaron in  Hebrews 7:9-10 " 9  And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10  For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Aaron was even called by God before he was born, that is as a son of Levi.

Quote

First, I missed that citation. Acts 10:38 says nothing of the Holy Ghost doing the annointing. Well, no more than “power” doing the annointing. Second, the Holy Ghost had nothing to add to Jesus (kind of hard to need something additional if you’re God, right?)

Jesus was anointed with the Holy Ghost directly while Old Testament Priests, Prophet and Kings were first anointed with oil to gain the benefits of the Spirit of God is a repeating theme.

This direct anointing of Jesus is a massive and consistent Biblical Theme –

For example--

Quote

Acts 10: 38  How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Luke 4: 18  The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

Isaiah 42: 1   Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners,

Matthew 12:18 "Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.

1 John 2: 24,   27  But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

PacMan:

Quote

<<<It was a witness to those in attendance. You’ve completely conflated things. Jesus didn’t need the gift of the Holy Ghost when he had correspondence with the Father. Again, you’ve completely dismissed Numbers and the laying on of hands for Joshua’s ordination, by which his honor was received.

The other problem with your argument is that it completely reduces Hebrews 5 to nonsense. If God just talks to people and calls them, then why reference anything from Aaron? The answer is simple: Because Aaron Levitical priesthood, though changed, still held the appropriate practice and procedure. I don’t understand how that’s debatable.>>>

As I have explained in various ways here the literal practice of anointing by pouring oil on the head was used as a symbolic act for officially, designating and setting apart a person for a certain, public, leadership function in the community. It was a one-time event much like an inauguration or ordination. Things could also be sanctified or dedicated to a special purpose for God by anointing (Exo. 29:36). The three kinds of leaders anointed for their ministries in the Old Testament were: priests, Exo. 28:41; kings, 1 Sam. 10:1; and prophets, 1 Ki. 19:16.
A major difference between Israel and the other nations was that when God had someone anointed or authorized for leadership He also provided the empowering of the Holy Spirit to do the job (1 Sam. 16:13; Isa. 61:1).

As we see in scripture, Jesus had the Holy Ghost decend upon him at baptism. And he was lead  by the Spirit.  And the scriptures say that He was anointed with the Spirit directly, inferring that oil was not used in order for Him to gain that Spirit.

These are all event witnessed by people so that they would be able to recognize Jesus Christ’s identity as Messiah as The Anointed One.  

Quote

<<<For the record, the Father is the one that anointed him. Not the Holy Ghost.  .  >>>

Yes he was anointed with the Holy Ghost by His Father instead of being anointed with oil to get the Holy Ghost by a Priest.


Quote

Quote

<<<Except when it doesn’t work because of terrible disorder. There are so many “brands” of Christianity that it impossible to say there is “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” As such, the organization of the early church wasn’t for fun. It was to create a structure upon which people could rely, and was intended to exist until all were “unified in the faith.” You can’t proof-text that away. The fact that there were practices used, it is not left to you to call them “didactic devices.” To so cast them aside as unnecessary is to undermine the Apostles and Prophets chosen by the Lord himself.


I do understand them. But more importantly, I understand their importance in early Christian civilization. The old law had been turned on its head. Gentiles were baptized, and all the laws were summarily reduced to two. There was no reason to adopt the adulterous practices of the pagans or any other culture. The Apostles referencing the past practice in current use was purposeful, meaningful, and you haven’t the authority to wrest the scripture to make any other interpretation.

I must note that your interpretation begs a disastrous slippery slope. To pick and chose what it liked and not, and those things that are not, to simply chalk it up to mysteries of god or cultural uses? That is an adulteration of the scripture.

Funny how our system most closely mirrors that of Christ’s established church, doesn’t it?>>>>

You are making a lot of claims  across many topics of discussion, with out any basis or foundation.


Concerning Unconditional Salvation, which zerinus and PacMac say does not exist in Mormonism.



A well-known Mormon author, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, has written,

Quote

"...unconditional or general Salvation that which comes by grace alone without obedience to gospel law, consists inthe mere fact of being resurrected.... This kind of salvation eventually will come to all mankind, excepting only the sons ofperdition"

(Mormon Doctrine, pg. 669)

Brigham Young talked about people being damned NOT going to Hell.

Quote

"Will all the people be damned who are not Latter-day Saints? Yes, and a great many of them, except they repent speedily. I will say further, that many of the Latter-day Saints, except they learn their lessons better, will be judged in the same way. That is my candid opinion"

(Journal of Discourses 1:339).

Edited by Hick Preacher, 23 November 2010 - 09:32 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

LeSellers, on 23 November 2010 - 04:58 PM, said:

"Gotten the Holy Ghost" is confusing because, as others have already noted, there is a distinct difference between "the Holy Ghost" and "the Gift of the Holy Ghost".

But that's not the only ambiguity. "The gift of the Holy Ghost" may or may not mean the same thing every time it's used. Others have pointed that out, as well.

But the Gift of the Holy Ghost is received in but one way: by the laying on of hands by one who is in authority to administer this ordinance.


We certainly do not because we know of at least one at least a decade earlier who did.

It is also doctrine that many others were inspired of the Holy Ghost, not least of whom were the Founding Fathers of this nation (USmerica), the Reformers, Columbus (among other discovers), and most of the first twenty or so Presidents of the united States of America. These "wise men", we believe, were "raised up" especially to fill the offices they did.

While all of this is absolutely true, it is important to note that they received inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but not the Gift of the Holy Ghost. This they (and anyone else who desires it) will receive by proxy in the Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (most have already done so).

Lehi

Thanks Lehi, it is fine with me that you state the LDS view on this matter.
We are just going around a bit on the idea of weather or not the Gift as a constant companion can  only imparted using the LDS  Priesthood Processes.

[ELF1024]

Hick Preacher, on 23 November 2010 - 09:41 PM, said:

Thanks Lehi, it is fine with me that you state the LDS view on this matter.
We are just going around a bit on the idea of weather or not the Gift as a constant companion can  only imparted using the LDS  Priesthood Processes.

It would seem to me, Hick, that the only people going around on it are you and Mr. Bowman (and perhaps BookLuvr). The rest of us are clear on the subject.

Just as Korihor recanted his teachings at the end, I believe that you and Mr. Bowman know the truth of all things, and you choose to actively rebel against them.

Alma 30 said:

52 And Korihor put forth his hand and wrote, saying: I know that I am dumb, for I cannot speak; and I know that nothing save it were the power of God could bring this upon me; yea, and I always knew that there was a God.

53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I wrote: "I understand this is the LDS position. It doesn't address the issue I  raised in my opening post, which is that according to Acts 10:44-48  Cornelius received the Gift of the Holy Ghost (not just an occasional visit or short indwelling) before he was baptized."

You replied:

Vance, on 23 November 2010 - 01:20 PM, said:

You have no basis for making that judgment. It very well could have been (and was) the short term indwelling.

Acts says it was "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (KJV). Isn't that a sufficient basis for saying that it was the gift of the Holy Ghost?

[Rob Bowman]

ELF,

You wrote:

ELF1024, on 23 November 2010 - 02:14 PM, said:

Mr. Bowman, with respect. You're living up to my expectation that you, and most Christians, would accept any explanation; with the exception that the LDS Church or Joseph Smith was correct.

This sounds like a clever retort, but it misses the mark. I think Joseph Smith was right about a lot of things. I also think he was wrong about a lot of things. This means that I approach Joseph Smith's pronouncements with the attitude that they might be right or they might not be. You, on the other hand, assume that he must have been right, even when the evidence is clearly against it.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

I had written:

Some of your fellow Mormons assert that there is a "pattern" of how one  must receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. I simply asked for a  demonstration of this pattern. What you are saying, in effect, is that  there is no pattern because the Holy Ghost can be received in all sorts  of different ways, but there still is some obligation of undergoing the  laying on of hands in order to obtain the Holy Ghost in one specific  capacity. So, I conclude that you have conceded that this obligation  cannot be supported by reference to any "pattern" in the Bible. Is that  correct?

You replied:

zerinus, on 23 November 2010 - 02:23 PM, said:

Of course there is. The "pattern" is the laying on of hands. Although the Holy Ghost can be received in many different ways and in various capacities and categories, something is obtained by the ritual of the laying on of hands that cannot be obtained in any other way; and that is the right to the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. That is the "pattern".

Can you demonstrate this pattern in the Bible? That is the question.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 23 November 2010 - 02:50 PM, said:

Don't need no stinking proof.  A bald assertion is sufficient.

Now that's ironic!

[ELF1024]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 07:43 AM, said:

This sounds like a clever retort, but it misses the mark. I think Joseph Smith was right about a lot of things. I also think he was wrong about a lot of things. This means that I approach Joseph Smith's pronouncements with the attitude that they might be right or they might not be. You, on the other hand, assume that he must have been right, even when the evidence is clearly against it.

I do not agree that the evidence is clearly against it.

For one thing, it isn't only Joseph Smith Jr. who has sustained the idea of how the how the Holy Ghost is passed on. In practice it has been confirmed by every Latter-Day Prophet since Joseph Smith Jr.

The Bible is as best, neutral on the subject as it contridicts itself all over the place.

Edited by ELF1024, 24 November 2010 - 07:52 AM.

[ELF1024]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 07:43 AM, said:

This sounds like a clever retort, but it misses the mark. I think Joseph Smith was right about a lot of things. I also think he was wrong about a lot of things. This means that I approach Joseph Smith's pronouncements with the attitude that they might be right or they might not be. You, on the other hand, assume that he must have been right, even when the evidence is clearly against it.

You might as well ask:

If this indeed is that pattern by which men are supposed to recieve the Holy Ghost. How was Joseph Smith Jr. able to translate the plates for a time before he recieved Baptism. Why is it that he didn't follow the pattern? How were Joseph Smith and Oliver able to recieve the Priesthood of Aaron before being Baptized?

I think those are far more relevant questions than one based on one scripture in Acts.

Edited by ELF1024, 24 November 2010 - 08:04 AM.

[Vance]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 07:40 AM, said:

Acts says it was "the gift of the Holy Ghost" (KJV). Isn't that a sufficient basis for saying that it was the gift of the Holy Ghost?

This has been explained to you numerous times.  It was the temporary indwelling gift, not the permanent right to indwelling gift.

But hey, just keep ignoring the distinction between the two.

[Vance]

Rob,

It is like this;

LeSellers, on 23 November 2010 - 04:58 PM, said:

But that's not the only ambiguity. "The gift of the Holy Ghost" may or may not mean the same thing every time it's used. Others have pointed that out, as well.

Just as the word "saved" doesn't mean the same thing every time it is used, the phrase "the gift of the Holy Ghost" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing ever time it is used.

Get it now?

Edited by Vance, 24 November 2010 - 10:43 AM.

[zerinus]

Rob Bowman, on 24 November 2010 - 07:45 AM, said:

Some of your fellow Mormons assert that there is a "pattern" of how one  must receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. I simply asked for a  demonstration of this pattern. What you are saying, in effect, is that  there is no pattern because the Holy Ghost can be received in all sorts  of different ways, but there still is some obligation of undergoing the  laying on of hands in order to obtain the Holy Ghost in one specific  capacity. So, I conclude that you have conceded that this obligation  cannot be supported by reference to any "pattern" in the Bible. Is that  correct?

I think you are engaging in a disingenuous act of obfuscation. In your OP you raised this objection to Mormonism:

Quote

The LDS Church teaches that in order to receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, you must first be baptized; then you must have hands laid on you by someone authorized to do so; and then, and only then, you may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. One serious problem with this claim is that the Bible reports that a whole household of people—the household of Cornelius—received the gift of the Holy Ghost (i.e., the Holy Spirit) before they were baptized. How does the LDS Church handle this difficulty? It simply denies what is right there in the text.

To which I and others are responding. The answer is that if you disengage for the semantics, there is a gift that is bestowed by the laying on of hands that does not come in any other way, which has already been explained.

Quote

Can you demonstrate this pattern in the Bible? That is the question.

Of course I can, and I believe it has already been done.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

Vance, on 24 November 2010 - 08:28 AM, said:

This has been explained to you numerous times.  It was the temporary indwelling gift, not the permanent right to indwelling gift.

But hey, just keep ignoring the distinction between the two.

What basis, if any, do you have in the text of the book of Acts for this distinction? That is, what in the book of Acts supports your claim that the "gift of the Holy Ghost" that Cornelius and his household received was "the  temporary indwelling gift, not the permanent right to indwelling gift"

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You wrote:

Quote

I think you are engaging in a disingenuous act of obfuscation.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but you have no basis in fact for making this accusation. In fact, you haven't even offered any argument or evidence to support it.

You wrote:

Quote

The answer is that if you disengage for the semantics, there is a gift that is bestowed by the laying on of hands that does not come in any other way, which has already been explained.

I didn't and still don't need this explanation. I need and have requested evidence to support this explanation and its relevance to Acts 10:44-48.

I had asked if you could demonstrate a "pattern" in the Bible of how one must receive this special gift that you say comes only by the laying on of hands. You replied:

Quote

Of course I can, and I believe it has already been done.

Sorry, I haven't seen any such attempt. To do this, you would need several instances in the Bible of people receiving this gift by the laying on of hands and no examples of people receiving this gift without the laying on of hands. No one here has even tried to mount an argument for such a pattern.

There are six occasions in the book of Acts of people receiving the Holy Spirit. You need to decide which of these are instances of people receiving the gift you say requires the laying on of hands and then show a pattern based on those instances. You also need to show evidence that the other occurrences of people receiving the Holy Spirit are actually instances of a different gift.

Lots of luck.

[PacMan]

Hick,

You are all over the place without giving any decent explanation, but have rather completely stripped the Bible from its meaning.  Be it authority or anointing or laying on of hands, I am stunned that you can chalk it up to cultural or corporate symbolism.  I mean, in one breath you mention the importance of apostles coming from Jerusalem, while then agreeing that Paul was authoritative whom wasn’t a Jew at all but a Roman citizen!  So if Paul could effectuate ordinances, etc., why couldn’t Phillip?  Isn’t it possible that the laying on of hands was to avoid the very problem that plagued the early church; i.e. wondering whether the baptism of John was effective or not?  And if so – which it was – you can’t say that it was cultural.  It was very, very real and had a very, very substantive purpose.

What we know is that there was an organizational hierarchy, and there was a means of giving this authority, and Protestant Christianity has divorced itself from Biblical authority.  It is insincere to suggest that everything you can’t explain, as “cultural,” despite there being an obvious practice that adopted the process of laying on of hands as THE means of giving authority.  Heb 5:4 CANNOT be read any other way (go respond in my new thread on the subject).

And on the salvation bit, the term has often been sloppily used.  Redemption (or Salvation) from death is free to everyone.  Salvation (or Redemption) from sin, is not.  Both are given through the grace of god, but the second is conditional upon faith and obedience.  Don’t perpetuate such an erroneous teaching – particularly since Mormon Doctrine was basically condemned as false doctrine by the church.

PacMan