Can The Holy Spirt Be Conferred By Laying On Of Hands

[Uncle Dale]

But I am curious...despite the heavy tone you hold against certain fragments church (the greater Mormon movement) history, it seems you still hold onto your affiliation to the Reorganized movement without complete disaffection. I don't understand it at all... If the BoM really came from Spaulding, then what's that make JS? And if that, why hold onto anything mormoney?

PacMan

What on earth would the Mormons do, with a member who testifies that the Church is true AND that

Spalding-Rigdon textual material is evident within the BoM?

Perhaps somebody ought to start a thread here -- on whether it would be better to dunk the Unk

into the LDS now, or leave that little matetr until after his demise?

No -- on second thought, such a poll would violate the restriction on no personal threads.

In the meanwhile, next time you are at a large library, get Samuel Taylor's old book, "The Kingdom

or Nothing" down off the shelf and thumb through the index, until you get to "Samuel Broadhurst."

You may find something there which will put a big smile on your face.

d'Unk

[PacMan]

What on earth would the Mormons do, with a member who testifies that the Church is true AND that

Spalding-Rigdon textual material is evident within the BoM?

It depends if his position is that the Spalding-Rigdon textual material was the catalyst for the BoM. If you are examining correlation and not proving causation, then there's no problem. By the way, do you believe the restoration true but the BoM having come from the Spalding-Rigdon text?

Perhaps somebody ought to start a thread here -- on whether it would be better to dunk the Unk

into the LDS now, or leave that little matetr until after his demise?

I say now. We need more colorful shirts in sacrament meetings.

In the meanwhile, next time you are at a large library, get Samuel Taylor's old book, "The Kingdom

or Nothing" down off the shelf and thumb through the index, until you get to "Samuel Broadhurst."

So...he was to ordained an Elder? Is this your G-G-?? Don't hold me in suspense...post in full!

PacMan

[Uncle Dale]

do you believe the restoration true but the BoM having come from the Spalding-Rigdon text?

I have long stated as a matter of conviction, that the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation ought

to be examined very closely, further researched and discussed by observant Latter Day Saints --

and that each person who holds the message of the book to be sacred, ought to be allowed to find

his/her own answer to the question.

I have never professed that the Saints ought to accept this explanation of BoM origins as an entire

body, nor that they should address it from a doctrinal statndpoint. Rather, what I believe, is that

parts of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship theory offer a compelling alternative explanation for the

text, and that it is possible to articulate a rational explanation of how Rigdon arrived at his radical

theological views (essentially the same as those of the BoM) before 1830, and how he could have

cooperated with Joseph Smith before that date.

As some here may be aware, I am currently in the process of compiling a book on that particular

subject -- and have approached some notable LDS to partucipate in the process of contributing to,

proofreading, critiquing, etc. its forthcoming contents.

We shall see where that goes.

So...he was to ordained an Elder? Is this your G-G-?? Don't hold me in suspense...post in full!

PacMan

The story is a bit complex -- And yes, he was my grandfather's grandfather -- an early pioneer in

Great Salt Lake City and neighbor to Parley P. Pratt (on one of Pratt's lots at least).

Samuel's case has been cited as one in which an excommuncated Mormon was brought back

into the LDS Church without re-baptism or re-confirmation.

During the 1860s, after serving in the re-constituted Nauvoo Legion in parisan actions against

Johnston's Army, etc., Samuel began to criticise Apostle George A. Smith and others for various

doctrinal reasons. He let go his two "plurals" and lived as a Josephite sympathizer in SLC for a

while, before the East Mill Creek Stake Presidency excommunicated him. Thereafter he was a

participant in RLDS activities in the area, but never sought any ordinances within that group.

His son, William Broadhurst, married a lady with RLDS family and became the father of my own

Grandfather Broadhurst.

To make a long story short, during the 1880s, while LDS President John Taylor was in hiding,

his son (a friend of Samuel Broadhurst's) presented the case to President Taylor. In the rush

of activities designed to thwart the arresting federal marshalls, Samuel's excommunication record

was misplaced -- Samuel himself was on his deathbed, with hours left to live. President Taylor

re-instated Samuel's membership without requiring re-baptism or re-confirmation (or any repentance

of Samuel's anti-polygamy stance -- he repented for having disobeyed counsel). He was re-ordained

an elder and died almost immediately.

My role model?

UD

[PacMan]

I have long stated as a matter of conviction, that the Spalding-Rigdon authorship explanation ought

to be examined very closely, further researched and discussed by observant Latter Day Saints --

and that each person who holds the message of the book to be sacred, ought to be allowed to find

his/her own answer to the question.

I have never professed that the Saints ought to accept this explanation of BoM origins as an entire

body, nor that they should address it from a doctrinal statndpoint. Rather, what I believe, is that

parts of the Spalding-Rigdon authorship theory offer a compelling alternative explanation for the

text, and that it is possible to articulate a rational explanation of how Rigdon arrived at his radical

theological views (essentially the same as those of the BoM) before 1830, and how he could have

cooperated with Joseph Smith before that date.

Then I myself don't have a big problem with it. As long as your approach was objective, examining the pros and cons to the theory, I think it'd be a fine academic work. If the "cons" of it all were left out, then membership could be a bit difficult (certainly there are cons).

To make a long story short, during the 1880s, while LDS President John Taylor was in hiding,

his son (a friend of Samuel Broadhurst's) presented the case to President Taylor. In the rush

of activities designed to thwart the arresting federal marshalls, Samuel's excommunication record

was misplaced -- Samuel himself was on his deathbed, with hours left to live. President Taylor

re-instated Samuel's membership without requiring re-baptism or re-confirmation (or any repentance

of Samuel's anti-polygamy stance -- he repented for having disobeyed counsel). He was re-ordained

an elder and died almost immediately.

I think that "re-baptism" is just as much of a symbol as baptism is. When we apostatize, we leave...but the Savior still stand at the door and knocks. That isn't a practice that would concern me in the least. The power of repentence is strong, and if the leadership deems it ok, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

All the same, that's a most interesting story--appreciate it!

My role model?

No reason to miss out on life and wait for the deathbed.

PacMan

[Uncle Dale]

... membership could be a bit difficult (certainly there are cons).

PacMan

hmmmmmmmm....

And thereon hangs my tail -- er, ah... tale.

Uncle "I am fully confident of the conclusions of these latter day convictions..." Dale

[Son]

The Holy Spirit was conferred upon me while in prayer at the breakfast table. I was alone as far as mortals in the room.

If there were exalted beings there, then I only felt them and did not see them.

they may have laid hands on me. ?

[Obiwan]

An interesting way of viewing things, friend.

Looked at from this particular perpesctive, the Spirit of God may indeed have been made

manifest at my baptism, and in the renewal of my baptism covenant in a non-Mormon sacrament

service. This much at least, would accord with my experience (and that of many thousands of

other Reorganized LDS, Temple Lot Church members, etc.).

Such a viewpoint also appears to recognize that there would be great value in the Spirit of God

being present when I (or any other non-Mormon) gave a blessing. Whether of not some measure

of the Spirit was "conferred" (or in Reorganite language, "bestowed"), would be God's work, and

not a function of my (or any other's) latter day "authority."

Again, this fits in rather well with my own experience -- and it also may fit in with the old practice

of the Reorganization (as well as the Church of Christ Temple Lot) in recognizing the Mormon

baptisms (and even the ordinations) of converts out of the LDS ranks.

At least this viewpoint opens up an opportunity for dialogue, without any pre-judgements that I am

rejected of God, or am deluded, or am a liar, in so far as my testimony of a witness of God's Spirit.

I feel better already --

Uncle Dale

Indeed, but I forgot to mention (as has been already) that the GIFT of the Holy Ghost is only given by proper priesthood authority. Otherwise, the Holy Ghost is everywhere in those who head it's promptings. I've a few times in non-LDS services have known the Holy Ghost. But I've only known the fullness and sustaining power in the Church.

[ERMD]

This is a fascinating thread.

Thanks Unk and Pac!

[Uncle Dale]

The Holy Spirit was conferred upon me while in prayer at the breakfast table.

I was alone as far as mortals in the room.

Perhaps the Spirit of God was already with you, but you only recognized that

fact then and there, under those special circumstances.

????

If there were exalted beings there, then I only felt them and did not see them.

they may have laid hands on me. ?

Who laid hands upon the recipients of the tongues of fire at Pentecost?

UD

This is a fascinating thread.

Thanks Unk and Pac!

On behalf of Bro. Pac, I say you're welcome.

Uncle "I'm far too modest to say such things on my own behalf, of course" Dale

[Paul Ray]

Indeed, but I forgot to mention (as has been already) that the GIFT of the Holy Ghost is only given by proper priesthood authority. Otherwise, the Holy Ghost is everywhere in those who head it's promptings. I've a few times in non-LDS services have known the Holy Ghost. But I've only known the fullness and sustaining power in the Church.

I think there's another way to look at this, or say this, that should make this seem perfectly clear.

The "gift" of the Holy Ghost can only be given to someone by someone else who has the authority to "give" a person that "gift".

The Holy Ghost can still visit whoever he wants to visit, however, if the Holy Ghost has the authority to do that.

To give someone a gift the person giving that gift must have the power (or ability) to give it.

I hope that's now perfectly clear to everybody.

[PacMan]

hmmmmmmmm....

And thereon hangs my tail -- er, ah... tale.

Nothing a pair of clippers can't fix --er, ah... doh.

PacMan

[Son]

Perhaps the Spirit of God was already with you, but you only recognized that

fact then and there, under those special circumstances.

Yes, it is given to abide in every man that comes to this earth. And you are correct, It was most recognized as a feeling on the day I was more aware, so it has always been there to guide when I asked and could hear.

????

Who laid hands upon the recipients of the tongues of fire at Pentecost?

refresh my memory please

[Paul Ray]

refresh my memory please

Our Lord laid his hands upon the heads of his apostles when he ordained them unto his ministry.

... and then later he told them he would send them the Holy Ghost.

Our Lord has the authority to send the Holy Ghost to anybody he pleases.

And btw, I'm a little mystified at the fact that nobody seems to have mentioned what a TOTALLY AWESOME POWER it is for someone to be able to give the gift of the Holy Ghost to someone.

It's basically a personal introduction to God.

[Uncle Dale]

refresh my memory please

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in

one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,

and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven

tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the

Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

UD

[Son]

"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in

one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind,

and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven

tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the

Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."

UD

Ahh, yes , thankyou.

So I didn't get any special powers, so I must of just received the rush part. I hadn't overcome sin yet, so I understand why I wasnt' filled nor given power.

Still working on that. Where there is a will...........

[Paul Ray]

Does everyone understand that when a person is filled with the Holy Ghost, they are filled with a person... and not an "it"

... and that any powers that are manifest by a person who is filled with the Holy Ghost come by virtue of having the Holy Ghost convey those powers?

I may be misreading some people, but some people don't seem to understand what, or rather who, the Holy Ghost is.

[jadams_4242]

Does everyone understand that when a person is filled with the Holy Ghost, they are filled with a person... and not an "it"

... and that any powers that are manifest by a person who is filled with the Holy Ghost come by virtue of having the Holy Ghost convey those powers?

I may be misreading some people, but some people don't seem to understand what, or rather who, the Holy Ghost is.

So let me get this straight?---When a person is filled w/the holy ghost they are filled with a person?

So when you say a person is filled w/the holy ghost {whoopps i know you meant"person"}

When a "person" is filled w/a "person" by having a "person"covey those powers?

Could you possibly reiterate that?

[PacMan]

Son,

Ahh, yes , thankyou.

So I didn't get any special powers, so I must of just received the rush part. I hadn't overcome sin yet, so I understand why I wasnt' filled nor given power.

Still working on that. Where there is a will...........

Keep reading the account of Pentecost. Shortly after, Peter invites them to be baptised so that they may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Appart from the (at least) 2 manifestations of the spirit, they had yet received the gift of the Holy Ghost. The only time such a "gift" was given, was by the laying on of hands. Period.

PacMan

[Uncle Dale]

Son,

Keep reading the account of Pentecost. Shortly after, Peter invites them to be baptised so that they may receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Appart from the (at least) 2 manifestations of the spirit, they had yet received the gift of the Holy Ghost. The only time such a "gift" was given, was by the laying on of hands. Period.

PacMan

All of which clarifies Jedidiah's previously cryptic remark to Heber:

"Beware of Strangites bearing gifts!"

Uncle "Deseret Weekly News -- the suppressed edition of 1849" Dale

[PacMan]

[Paul Ray]

So let me get this straight?---When a person is filled w/the holy ghost they are filled with a person?

So when you say a person is filled w/the holy ghost {whoopps i know you meant"person"}

When a "person" is filled w/a "person" by having a "person"covey those powers?

Could you possibly reiterate that?

Sure, I'll reiterate that.

The Holy Ghost is a person who is God... and not a "thing"... so when a person is filled with the Holy Ghost they (that person) is sharing their body with the Holy Ghost.

Have you ever heard stories about demons who possess the body of a person who is living?

... while that person was also there in his/her body at the same time?

The Holy Ghost can also do that, except that it's a good thing and not a bad thing.

I often share my body with the Holy Ghost.

[Uncle Dale]

The Holy Ghost is a person ...

The Prophet Heber C. Kimball would have agreed with you -- and was quoted/published saying as much.

Uncle "which perhaps means that he didn't have a copy of the Lectures on Faith with him in Deseret" Dale

[Paul Ray]

Just in case anybody needs a review of some of our very basic doctrines.

Holy Ghost

[HiJolly]

Sure, I'll reiterate that.

The Holy Ghost is a person who is God... and not a "thing"... so when a person is filled with the Holy Ghost they (that person) is sharing their body with the Holy Ghost.

Have you ever heard stories about demons who possess the body of a person who is living?

... while that person was also there in his/her body at the same time?

The Holy Ghost can also do that, except that it's a good thing and not a bad thing.

I often share my body with the Holy Ghost.

Hmmm... Paul would you agree that a 'sign' that it is the HG & not 'just' the spirit, would be the simultaneous infusion of intelligence?

Curious as to your thoughts -

HiJolly

[Paul Ray]

Hmmm... Paul would you agree that a 'sign' that it is the HG & not 'just' the spirit, would be the simultaneous infusion of intelligence?

Curious as to your thoughts -

HiJolly

If you're asking me if I can tell it is the Holy Ghost by the fact that he imparts his intelligence to me when I commune (or communicate) with him, then, Yes, I would say that's a "sign"

Joseph Smith once said something about how a person who receives the Holy Ghost is a person who receives revelation, because the Holy Ghost is a revelator, and I agree.