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

[Rob Bowman]

stem,

You wrote:

Oh come on. I find one example where this may be the possible explanation and you conclude that means use of any biblical words doesn't matter? Not really. As I said, it is a gift. They very well could have used the official terminology of gift of the Holy Ghost when referring to the ordinance and also used the same words to describe when the Holy Ghost falls on, or witnesses for people. I think if LDS are right, this little example of critique doesn't mean a thing. If LDS are wrong, this example of critique isn't going to show anything of the sort.

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

You wrote:

Let's not get carried away. But if you think about it, we are free to use whatever terminology we feel is appropriate and we are not bound by what the Bible uses the terms to mean.

Precisely my conclusion as to your stance.

[Rob Bowman]

BCSpace,

I'm sorry, but I confess that I am unable to follow your reasoning.

[Rob Bowman]

rongo,

You wrote:

Obviously, God is free to deviate from His established pattern, and as has been mentioned, there are concrete examples of this in the scriptures and in Church history (Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery being ordained and then baptizing each other, for instance --- it could hardly have been otherwise in their case, unless John the Baptist had baptized them himself. Which he could have done, but God had them baptize each other after they received the priesthood). The instance of Cornelius falls under one of these exceptions, and for good reason, given the deep-seated Jewish abhorrence for Gentiles --- an abhorrence which required ministering of angels and a revelation to Peter, the president of the Church (and which probably also stemmed from Jesus' direct instructions not to take the gospel to the Gentiles).

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.

You wrote:

It may interest people (yourself included, Rob) that LDS Church leaders have addressed this question at length.

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

You wrote:

Note Brigham Young's point: Cornelius still had to submit to baptism, even though he had received the Holy Ghost prior to his baptism. Do you agree with this, Rob?

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 wrote:

Do you agree that the continued possession of the gift of the Holy Ghost for Cornelius depended on his acceptance of and submission to the instructions that Peter gave him? Would he still have had "it" if he had concluded that he didn't have to listen to Peter?

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.

You wrote:

Many Brethren also insisted that Cornelius still had to receive the ordinance of laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, even though the Holy Ghost had already fallen on him.

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

[Rob Bowman]

LifeonaPlate,

You wrote:

Why argue with a biblical inerrantist? WOT. A Waste o time.

Had Joseph Smith or any other LDS leader stated frankly that they disagreed with Acts 10:44-48 or with that passage as it has come down to us, we would be having a different discussion. The problem is that the LDS Church flatly denies what Acts 10:44-48 says while not acknowledging that they are disagreeing with the text.

[Rob Bowman]

semlogo,

May I take it, then, that you never quote specific statements from the Bible to support your views, since, as you have said here, doing so would be pointless?

Quibbling over fine details in a book edited so many times and so full of forged sections seems pointless. All the Bible is really good for is a very general, soft focus version of events.

[Rob Bowman]

USU78,

Several Mormons have already dismissed what Acts 10:44-48 says in favor of the teaching of Joseph Smith. So apparently they recognize that they cannot accept both.

So . . . we can only disagree with RB if we're not honest people.

I see.

Thanks.

USU "False Dichotomies Abound in RB-land" 78

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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

I want to write one last thing. I have a hypothetical. I am not real bog on hypotheticals but I think this might help give you an idea why your words seem to have little effect on us.

Suppose those words that you quoted in the beginning of this thread were in the bible. Suppose Paul (An apsotle) had stated some were in a writting that what Peter had said was in error and that the Gift of the HG can only be confered by the laying on of hands after baptism. And that what Peter really meant was that Cornelius only had the HG testify to him.

Would you go with that?

[David T]

The modern Church has specific standardized terminology it uses. That terminology, while in many cases based on or derived from biblical language, does not necessarily have a 1-to-1 correspondence. This often has occurred for purposes of clarification, to distinguish between distinct concepts that use similar wording (or names) in the scriptural record. For example, in current usage, there has become a distinction in LDS parlance between the significance of the terms 'ordain' and 'set apart', even though even the Doctrine and Covenants from time to time uses the terms interchangeably.

The historian Luke noted that the Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Ghost, as observed through a manifestation.

The 19th Century Restored Church taught and understood a distinction between the power of the Holy Ghost, and the Sacramental Gift, a covenant-companion which, among other things, provides the work of Sanctification.

Joseph (and the 2009 manual) are using the Biblical textual narrative, and expounding upon it using Modern Standardized Terminology, which, as you have pointed out, is not consistent in meaning with the terminology as used in the original text.

So yes. We would agree that Joseph and the Modern Church does not mean Gift of the Holy Ghost in the same way Luke references the phrase 'gift of the Holy Ghost' in that passage.

I don't think there's any worthwhile need to try to prove that such is the case.

[USU78]

Several Mormons have already dismissed what Acts 10:44-48 says in favor of the teaching of Joseph Smith. So apparently they recognize that they cannot accept both.

Not true.

Yet another false dichotomy . . . or we're simply not honest people, being Mormons and all, and no "honest disagreement" is possible in RBland.

We understand your position perfectly, RB. We understand the purpose and goal of your several threads. You haven't been ambiguous or covert.

Thanks for that, BTW. Too often we encounter smiling bigots who feign friendship. This is so much more convenient.

[Rob Bowman]

Pahoran,

You wrote:

That's because, in RB-land:

1. RB is always right;

Despite the fact that I acknowledged that honest people could disagree with me about many things! This just proves that you're engaged in high-handed rhetoric, not genuinely listening to what I am saying.

You continued:

2. Words only ever have one meaning;

3. Phrases only have one meaning;

No, I make no such claim. But look: there are only two occurrences of the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in the Bible. Neither of those occurrences fits the LDS paradigm of what must happen before one receives what LDS theology calls the gift of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it seems that LDS doctrine simply doesn't use this biblical expression with a biblical meaning. Now, if Joseph Smith had simply admitted this, or admitted that he disagreed with Acts 10, we would be having a different discussion. But in fact no LDS leader to my knowledge has ever argued that Luke meant something different by "the gift of the Holy Spirit" than is meant in LDS doctrine.

You continued misrepresenting me as follows:

4. Not only is RB always right, but that simple fact is self-evident to everyone.

Again, I stated explicitly that honest people might disagree with me on many things.

You wrote:

In the real world, as distinct from RB-land, the problem is obvious: As a bibliolater,...

I am not a bibliolater. CFR to support your false accusation.

You continued:

RB unquestioningly assumes that whatever Greek words are translated as "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in Acts 10 must necessarily have exactly the same range of meaning as the modern LDS term, "the Gift of the Holy Ghost."

No, in fact, I don't, as already explained.

You wrote:

The fact is that the English LDS phrase "the Gift of the Holy Ghost" is of modern origin, and it encapsulates a single sharply delimited concept: the conferred right to have the lifelong, constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. This concept, while quite unmistakably present in the New Testament is nowhere (to my knowledge) spelled out or defined therein; and the phrase used to denote it only accidentally resembles the phrase Mr. Bowman hangs his hat upon.

Please cite for me one LDS authority that makes this point. Just one will do!

You wrote:

I call on Mr Bowman to abandon his bibliolatry, and his devotion to "the God of the Bible" -- a purely imaginary construct that is, ironically, entirely unscriptural -- and instead become a Christian, and join us in worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Is this tongue-in-cheek, or did you just deny that I am a Christian?

[Vance]

1. Acts 2:4 refers to the apostles (see 2:26; 1:14), not to the thousands to whom Peter was speaking in Acts 2:38. Peter was not addressing himself or the other apostles when he spoke what is recorded in Acts 2:38.

True, but this isn't all I have said about Acts 2.

2. Acts 2:38 does not say that everyone or anyone had to be baptized "before" they "could" receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rob, Rob, Rob! If it would further your agenda, you would fight tooth and nail that the order given by Peter is the order that MUST be followed. BUT because it is counter to your agenda, you will fight tooth and nail that the order given by Peter is irrelevant.

3. Puzzling, then, that in the only two references in the Bible to "the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38; 10:45), nothing is said about laying on of hands!

As if the Bible was sufficient to address this issue.

Since your theology denies that receiving the Holy Spirit is the same thing as receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit, this leaves you with absolutely zero biblical support for the claim that you must have hands laid on you to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Rob,

If you want to continue to fail to understand the difference between the Gift of (right to) the Holy Ghost, given by the laying on of hands, and the gift of (privilege of) the Holy Ghost that God can send to anyone He desires to, well then you will NEVER understand LDS doctrine any where near as much as you claim to.

Here is another clue Rob, we don't get our doctrine from the Bible and therefore we don't care if the Bible clearly describes our doctrine. The problem for you is that NOTHING in the Bible when properly understood contradicts LDS doctrine on this topic. So, feel free to ignore the reality of the situation and see how many converts you get. (Although, I suspect that what you are doing here is more for the sycophants and sheeple at IRR etc, and for your own ego, than it is for acquiring a better understanding of Mormonism or converting us.)

I don't understand your reasoning here.

No surprise.

I have already answered this argument.

And unsatisfactorily at that.

I don't see anything in this passage about a lack of proper authority.

I predicted that you would not see the clear and plain contradiction. Color me very unsurprised.

Where does it say that Paul had to lay hands on them?

Duh! If the laying on of hands is unimportant WHY did the gift come "WHEN Paul had laid his hands upon them" and not before?

And if it is true, as you say here, that someone had to lay hands on them "for them to receive the gifts of the Spirit" (i.e., tongues), then how did Cornelius's household manage to speak in tongues before they were baptized?

See above.

What is actually quite clear from the Bible is that laying on of hands, while it can be significant, is not mandatory or essential to receive the gift of (privilege of) the Holy Spirit.

True, (as clarified).

The problem you are fighting is not that the Bible is insufficient but that it does not fit your paradigm.

It fits just fine, when properly understood. I hate to break the news to you, but you are NOT the arbiter of what the Bible teaches.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

CFR: Please provide a reference to any LDS leader explaining that what the LDS Church means by the gift of the Holy Ghost is not the same thing as what Luke means by that same expression.

The modern Church has specific standardized terminology it uses. That terminology, while in many cases based on or derived from biblical language, does not necessarily have a 1-to-1 correspondence. This often has occurred for purposes of clarification, to distinguish between distinct concepts that use similar wording (or names) in the scriptural record.

The historian Luke noted that the Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Ghost, as observed through a manifestation.

The 19th Century Restored Church taught and understood a distinction between the power of the Holy Ghost, and the Sacramental Gift, a covenant-companion which, among other things, provides the work of Sanctification.

Joseph (and the 2009 manual) are using the Biblical textual narrative, and expounding upon it using Modern Standardized Terminology, which, as you have pointed out, is not consistent with the words used in the original text.

So yes. We would agree that Joseph and the Modern Church does not mean Gift of the Holy Ghost in the same way Luke references the phrase 'gift of the Holy Ghost' in that passage.

I don't think there's any worthwhile need to try to prove that such is the case.

[David T]

nackhadlow,

CFR: Please provide a reference to any LDS leader explaining that what the LDS Church means by the gift of the Holy Ghost is not the same thing as what Luke means by that same expression.

As you were replying, I added in an example of the practice of shifting terminology for clarification purposes:

This often has occurred for purposes of clarification, to distinguish between distinct concepts that use similar wording (or names) in the scriptural record. For example, in current usage, there has become a distinction in LDS parlance between the significance of the terms 'ordain' and 'set apart', even though even the Doctrine and Covenants from time to time uses the terms interchangeably.

[Vance]

nackhadlow,

CFR: Please provide a reference to any LDS leader explaining that what the LDS Church means by the gift of the Holy Ghost is not the same thing as what Luke means by that same expression.

Rob,

You claim to understand LDS theology. Sorry, but you obviously don't. Keep trying though.

[semlogo]

semlogo,

May I take it, then, that you never quote specific statements from the Bible to support your views, since, as you have said here, doing so would be pointless?

I have stopped doing that as a way of proving that some specific event actually happened, yes. The Bible is a big picture book. All forest. Once you zoom in on the trees you discover that many of them are props.

[Vance]

Why argue with a biblical inerrantist? WOT. A Waste o time.

This thread has proven you correct.

[David T]

nackhadlow,

CFR: Please provide a reference to any LDS leader explaining that what the LDS Church means by the gift of the Holy Ghost is not the same thing as what Luke means by that same expression.

Doesn't Joseph Smith's quote (and the citation in Gospel Principles) clearly do just that?

There is a difference between the Holy Ghost, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized; which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the gospel; but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign, or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him. (Times and Seasons, April 15, 1842)

There is a clear association with a sacramental ordinance in Joseph Smith's usage of the term, distinguishing from the experience Luke described, where no ordinance is referred to, yet still using the term gift (which was a manifestation of power).

This has been the classic statement used to distinguish the two distinct concepts which do not have a clear and distinct terminology in the biblical record:

1. Manifestation of the spirit's power

2. Sacral Confirmation of the Holy Ghost As a Covenant Companion through the sign of laying on of Hands

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

Neither Joseph Smith nor Gospel Principles acknowledges that their assertions use the expression "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in a way that differs from the Book of Acts. That's the problem. If you'll notice, Mormons in this thread have been all over the map in their responses to the opening post. Some have argued that Luke uses the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 (but apparently not in 2:38) to mean the specific spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. Others argue that Luke was in error (since Mormons have no problem with scriptural writings, especially the Bible, containing errors) or that Acts 10:44-48 has somehow been copied incorrectly. Still others argue that Luke used the expression to refer to the reception of the Holy Spirit in one sense while the LDS use the term in a different sense. That's three or four separate explanations. I have not seen one statement by any LDS leader endorsing any of these explanations. Not one!

Doesn't Joseph Smith's quote (and the citation in Gospel Principles) clearly do just that?

There is a difference between the Holy Ghost, and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before he was baptized; which was the convincing power of God unto him of the truth of the gospel; but he could not receive the gift of the Holy Ghost until after he was baptized. Had he not taken this sign, or ordinance upon him, the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him. (Times and Seasons, April 15, 1842)

There is a clear association with a sacramental ordinance in Joseph Smith's usage of the term, distinguishing from the experience Luke described, where no ordinance is referred to, yet still using the term gift (which was a manifestation of power).

This has been the classic statement used to distinguish the two distinct concepts which do not have a clear and distinct terminology in the biblical record:

1. Manifestation of the spirit's power

2. Sacral Confirmation of the Holy Ghost As a Covenant Companion through the sign of laying on of Hands

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

I didn't see anything in your most recent post to which a response is needed. You either repeat claims to which I have already responded or make grand accusations to distract from the issue at hand.

[David T]

nackhadlow,

Neither Joseph Smith nor Gospel Principles acknowledges that their assertions use the expression "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in a way that differs from the Book of Acts. That's the problem. If you'll notice, Mormons in this thread have been all over the map in their responses to the opening post. Some have argued that Luke uses the expression "the gift of the Holy Spirit" in Acts 10:45 (but apparently not in 2:38) to mean the specific spiritual gift of speaking in tongues. Others argue that Luke was in error (since Mormons have no problem with scriptural writings, especially the Bible, containing errors) or that Acts 10:44-48 has somehow been copied incorrectly. Still others argue that Luke used the expression to refer to the reception of the Holy Spirit in one sense while the LDS use the term in a different sense. That's three or four separate explanations. I have not seen one statement by any LDS leader endorsing any of these explanations. Not one!

I personally tend to think the 'it was translated incorrectly' arguments are always the weakest of all Mormon arguments. It's basically used to compensate for a lack of understanding of biblical studies in general. It's generally not the old texts that have been altered, but how we use the language or understand principles and concepts today.

Even throughout the life of the LDS Church in and of itself, there have been many cases of standardization of terminology for convenience through time and usage. It's useful for common parlance, but, as has been demonstrated here, adds a degree of difficulty when it's not spelled out that that's what has been done, and then modern connotations of the terminology can be read into any usage of it in the scriptural text (ancient, or modern), which creates problems when the contemporary scriptural meaning of the term isn't the same as the theologically-loaded modern usage of the term.

Which is a key reason I benefit greatly from studying contemporary history along side whatever volume of scripture I'm studying (which often means I'm studying NT era literature, history of Ancient Israel and Judah, and several LDS Church History primary sources all at the same time!)

It's not necessary to claim there's anything intentionally dishonest going on.

[Hick Preacher]

If you don't mind me asking...

Where is it preserved, and where is it not preserved?

What of themes other than redemption, for redemption be not the only theme in the Bible?

Why not use the perfectly accurate spirit instead of assuming the Bible's reliability?

TAO--

The Bible is a collection of Books. Books with a common theme, with an intended goal and objective were selected by inspired men, who understood the theme.

There are no original New Testament manuscripts that have survived, only copies of copies.

Yet copies of copies are spread across large geographic regions remaining in good general order, indicating a limited degeneration and tampering of the originals. This is the where it is preserved. These many copies have been compared to interpolate a reconstruction of the original. This scholarly reconstruction is a kind of restoration of the gospel. Due to the nature of ancient distribution, and reconstruction, modern Bibles that have been reconstructed from old manuscripts are like a voice from the dust of the earth, bones that have come back to life. These reconstructions are especially effective when it comes to the New Testament, and IMO the most accurate in a literal and historical sense are the book of Acts and Gospel of Luke, followed by Corinthians and Gospel of Mark.

Many Old Testament books are still undergoing investigation of certain isolated passages. Yet thematically the Old Testament being a reflection of the New accurate in its themes of redemption. Scholars even LDS ones are making contributions to the reconstruction of certain Old Testament teachings.

The Christian version and Complete Theme of redemption is communicated within the text completely in The Book of Hebrews ( the Abraham lived by Faith themes), And immediately before the Stoning of Stephen in Acts. The beginning half is repeated in Genesis, and the Ending is told in Revelation. The central story of redemption and the historical account of the Atonement is of course in the Four Gospels. These together formulate the Grand Theme of Redemption and the back bone for the canon of redemption. It amounts to a Redemption- History of the human race. This is not rocket science. Inspired men compiled this canon due to its theme. These men were prophets in a small way, leading to a big long ongoing restoration.

There can also be a gnostic canon, but that is outside the Bible and really is not a canon at all and does not need to be. A gnostic canon so to speak relates the theme beyond redemption-- such as the origin of the human soul, the origin of God, and the ultimate destiny of human kind as 'gods'. The Books in the Bible touch on these ideas, but do not elaborate on them-- and the Bible is not meant to discuss these things in detail.

The Spirit is essential in knowing the truth of God. 1 Co 14:

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Natural and Personal Revelation is fundamental to every believer-- Romans 1:

20

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

I am NOT a sola scriptura but rather a prima scriptura restorationist

[TAO]

TAO--

The Bible is a collection of Books. Books with a common theme, with an intended goal and objective were selected by inspired men, who understood the theme.

There are no original New Testament manuscripts that have survived, only copies of copies.

Yet copies of copies are spread across large geographic regions remaining in good general order, indicating a limited degeneration and tampering of the originals. This is the where it is preserved. These many copies have been compared to interpolate a reconstruction of the original. This scholarly reconstruction is a kind of restoration of the gospel. Due to the nature of ancient distribution, and reconstruction, modern Bibles that have been reconstructed from old manuscripts are like a voice from the dust of the earth, bones that have come back to life. These reconstructions are especially effective when it comes to the New Testament, and IMO the most accurate in a literal and historical sense are the book of Acts and Gospel of Luke, followed by Corinthians and Gospel of Mark.

This does not answer my question though - where are the differences, and what are they? Does one know precisely where the differences are, or to how much of an extent they are?

Many Old Testament books are still undergoing investigation of certain isolated passages. Yet thematically the Old Testament being a reflection of the New accurate in its themes of redemption. Scholars even LDS ones are making contributions to the reconstruction of certain Old Testament teachings.

The Christian version and Complete Theme of redemption is communicated within the text completely in The Book of Hebrews ( the Abraham lived by Faith themes), And immediately before the Stoning of Stephen in Acts. The beginning half is repeated in Genesis, and the Ending is told in Revelation. The central story of redemption and the historical account of the Atonement is of course in the Four Gospels. These together formulate the Grand Theme of Redemption and the back bone for the canon of redemption. It amounts to a Redemption- History of the human race. This is not rocket science. Inspired men compiled this canon due to its theme. These men were prophets in a small way, leading to a big long ongoing restoration.

This isn't what I was asking either though - I was asking what other themes exist in the Bible - it isn't fully based on redemption; it's structure is not fully based on such.

There can also be a gnostic canon, but that is outside the Bible and really is not a canon at all and does not need to be. A gnostic canon so to speak relates the theme beyond redemption-- such as the origin of the human soul, the origin of God, and the ultimate destiny of human kind as 'gods'. The Books in the Bible touch on these ideas, but do not elaborate on them-- and the Bible is not meant to discuss these things in detail.

I disagree, the gnostic canon is important for understanding the mysteries of God, if we are too want to look at them. Of course, then we get people arguing over the gnostic canon, which we don't really need - but the gnostic canon is just as important as the theme of redemption in the way that it relates to understanding of God. Furthermore, since not all of the mysteries of God are written - it leads to the idea that an open canon is what is needed.

The Spirit is essential in knowing the truth of God. 1 Co 14:

Yes, but then, why, I ask, do you place such importance in it being written - when it is known many important things will not be written. Why do you place such importance in the Bible, when there are clearly other ways to obtain information that is just as good - and sometimes even better than such written in the Bible?

Natural and Personal Revelation is fundamental to every believer-- Romans 1:

I am NOT a sola scriptura but rather a prima scriptura restorationist

Then why do you place emphasis on the BIble rather than personal revelation, I ask? The Bible would be useless without the personal revelation led to by the spirit.

[Hick Preacher]

TAO

You are looking for some BIG answers-

<<<This does not answer my question though - where are the differences, and what are they? Does one know precisely where the differences are, or to how much of an extent they are?>>>

You can get a commentary and study these things. Find one online.

Or access the criticisms of various versions. Such as:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Standard_Version#Criticism_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.

<<<This isn't what I was asking either though - I was asking what other themes exist in the Bible - it isn't fully based on redemption; it's structure is not fully based on such.>>>

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

[Vance]

BTW I am not actually a "sola biblicist",

But a "Prima Biblicist".

And I would say LDS are "Prima revelationists". (As supported by scripture.)

As Jesus taught.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

And Paul taught.

1 Cor 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak (not write?), not in the words which man

[zerinus]

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