339 replies to this topic

[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.

USU78, on 10 November 2010 - 10:21 PM, said:

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]

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

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.

Edited by nackhadlow, 11 November 2010 - 11:17 AM.

[USU78]

Rob Bowman, on 11 November 2010 - 11:01 AM, said:

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:

Pahoran, on 11 November 2010 - 12:39 AM, said:

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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:

Quote

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]

Rob Bowman, on 11 November 2010 - 10:36 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.)

Quote

I don't understand your reasoning here.

No surprise.

Quote

I have already answered this argument.

And unsatisfactorily at that.

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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).

Quote

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.

nackhadlow, on 11 November 2010 - 11:11 AM, said:

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]

Rob Bowman, on 11 November 2010 - 11:14 AM, said:

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]

Rob Bowman, on 11 November 2010 - 11:14 AM, said:

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]

Rob Bowman, on 11 November 2010 - 10:59 AM, said:

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.

Edited by semlogo, 11 November 2010 - 11:25 AM.

[Vance]

LifeOnaPlate, on 10 November 2010 - 07:58 PM, said:

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

This thread has proven you correct.

[David T]

Rob Bowman, on 11 November 2010 - 11:14 AM, said:

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

Edited by nackhadlow, 11 November 2010 - 11:47 AM.

[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!

nackhadlow, on 11 November 2010 - 11:26 AM, said:

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.

Edited by Rob Bowman, 11 November 2010 - 11:59 AM.

[David T]

Rob Bowman, on 11 November 2010 - 11:56 AM, said:

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.

Edited by nackhadlow, 11 November 2010 - 12:13 PM.

[Hick Preacher]

TAO, on 10 November 2010 - 11:07 PM, said:

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:

Quote

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

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

Quote

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]

Hick Preacher, on 11 November 2010 - 12:43 PM, said:

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?

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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?

Quote

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-

Quote

<<<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....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.

Quote

<<<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—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.

Quote

<<<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.>>>

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.

Quote

<<<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?>>>

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

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.

Quote

<<<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.
>>>

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.

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

[Vance]

Hick Preacher, on 11 November 2010 - 09:11 AM, said:

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’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
  14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

[zerinus]

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

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.

Cornelius was a special case. He was the first Gentile to be received into the Church. Up to that time the Jews believe that the gospel message was intended just for them. They believed that they were the chosen race, and that Christ's salvation was intended exclusively for them. They could never imagine that the (uncircumcised) Gentiles should also be the recipients and beneficiaries of that gospel message. That is why the Lord went to such lengths to make such an exception of this first case to convince them. Firstly, Cornelius was commanded by the angel to send for no less than Peter, the chief of the Apostles, to come to him and attend to his conversion, whereas there would have been other Christians closer at hand with sufficient authority to take care of that. Then Peter was shown a vision three times to convince him that the gospel was as much intended for the Gentiles as for the Jews, and was informed of the coming of Cornelius's messengers, and told to go with them. Then Peter accompanies the messengers of Cornelius to go and visit him; but he does not go there alone! He takes an entourage of other Jews with him to witness the event. And finally, in order to convince both Peter as well as the other Jews who had accompanied him, that the (uncircumcised) Gentiles were as much worthy of receiving the fulness of the blessings of the gospel as they were, God does something extraordinary: He pours out the Holy Ghost on Cornelius (and all his household and companions) to the convincing and astonishment of Peter and the Jews who had accompanied him, of the fact that the Gentiles were also to be the recipients of the gospel just like them. Cornelius' case was the exception, rather than the rule.

The scriptures do not make such a clear distinction between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the Holy Ghost that the Latter-day Saints make. The distinction is real, theologically speaking. But the scriptures do not semantically make such a clear distinction. They say Holy Ghost when they mean the gift of the Holy Ghost, or vice versa. So, to express it concisely, Cornelius had received the manifestation or outpouring of the Holy Ghost but, as Joseph Smith said:

Had he [Cornelius] not taken this sign or ordinance upon him [i.e. baptism and laying on of hands], the Holy Ghost which convinced him of the truth of God, would have left him. Until he obeyed these ordinances and received the gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, according to the order of God, he could not have healed the sick or commanded an evil spirit to come out of a man, and it obey him; . . . (TPJS, p.199.)

Ignore for the time being the semantics of “Holy Ghost” and “gift of ...”. What Joseph Smith taught, and Mormonism believes, is that had Cornelius disobeyed the voice of the angel, and failed to accept the gospel as preached to him by Peter, and receive the sacraments of baptism and laying on of hands, the Holy Ghost which had descended on him would have left him, and would not have tarried with him as his constant companion. That is what the laying on of hands does. It confers the right of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost. Ignore for the time being the semantic distinction of the “Holy Ghost” and the “gift of ...”. The fact remains that the right of the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost is conferred by the ordinance of the laying on of hands. Cornelius had not received that right by the mere outpouring or manifestation of the Holy Ghost that he had received prior to his baptism. That cold have only been received by the rite of the laying on of hands. The confusion arises by trying to match the semantic distinction with the theological one. The problem disappears once that verbal ambiguity is removed.

Edited by zerinus, 11 November 2010 - 05:04 PM.