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

[Lightbearer]

The LDS Church has been perpetuating this falsehood ever since Joseph Smith and continues to do so today in a doctrinal manual that all Mormons are currently studying. Again, honest and sincere people can disagree about many things, but I cannot see any plausible way of denying that in this instance Joseph Smith and the LDS Church is simply wrong.

Of course you cannot see it, because if you were to agree with Joseph and the Church you would realize that you are not saved, that the Holy Ghost has not part of what you are about. I wonder if the words of Jesus Christ is a lie?

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

I think it is obvious that Peter had a testimony of the Holy Ghost, yet Jesus was speaking of a greater gift than just the spirit of God bearing witness... the gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to that companionship after baptism. The world cannot receive it, why? Because it is not worthy of it. It takes faith in Jesus Christ, repentance and baptism by those authorized of God to administer His ordinances. Then comes the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. The gift of the Holy Ghost is a witness, but is also a sanctifier of those who have kept the covenant they make with God at baptism, then it cleanses us from sin and we are justified by that gift, which the world can never have until they repent and do what God has commanded them. That is not apparent to those who rely solely on the Bible as an innerrant book without believing in the power of God to reveal things which are hidden from the world. I realize that quoting from other sources than the Bible is offensive to you but I do so that you might understand the LDS perspective on these things:

(2 Nephi 31:6 - 13)"And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water? Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments. Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove. And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them. And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father? And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son. And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism

[Vance]

<SNIP>

HP,

I don't have time right now to go through this with you. Perhaps someone else will do so. If not I will be back no earlier than Sunday.

God bless.

Vance

[Rob Bowman]

Lightbearer,

You wrote:

Of course you cannot see it, because if you were to agree with Joseph and the Church you would realize that you are not saved, that the Holy Ghost has not part of what you are about.

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

You wrote:

I wonder if the words of Jesus Christ is a lie?

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

You wrote:

I think it is obvious that Peter had a testimony of the Holy Ghost, yet Jesus was speaking of a greater gift than just the spirit of God bearing witness... the gift of the Holy Ghost is the right to that companionship after baptism. The world cannot receive it, why? Because it is not worthy of it. It takes faith in Jesus Christ, repentance and baptism by those authorized of God to administer His ordinances. Then comes the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

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

You wrote:

I realize that quoting from other sources than the Bible is offensive to you....

Not at all. Quote whatever you like.

You wrote:

I realize this does not really help you, because all you are trying to do is score retorical points in the vain hope that you might convince some ignorant and weak member to abandon the true faith... good luck with that, but I would prefer to stick with Joseph and the LDS Church because they are the ones with the words of Jesus Christ, not your strained interpretation of the Bible.

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

[Thunderfire]

Are you saying that she held the priesthood? Can you give us specific examples of where she exercised priesthood authority. This discussion is getting very interesting.

Please go back and re-read what I wrote. Here is what I wrote again: The anointing of Mary, mother of Jesus and Elizabeth, the mother of John? What happened to them can definately be seen as the "authority" to accomplish a great and marvelous work!

Then I added: But then, we need to acknowledge how we are applying "limited definations" to our words. A call is also a bestowal of the authority to fulfill the call. In essence, when ever God gives a task for someone to complete (the call), the authority to fulfill that call is also given.

By your question to me, (in my opinion) this proves what I stated in that we ONLY equate the terms "authorty and call" as priesthood. Mary WAS called and given the authority to accomplish the work entrusted to her. We are in a day and time when some ONLY believe the priesthood can receive any form of authority or call to serve God in a profound way.

So what I said is true that we have very limited definations to our words which are limiting to us. It needs to be seen how we are also seeking to limit God as to who he gives authority (or a call) to fulfill his work.

[TAO]

Often any piece of knowledge can be reviewed, so show aspects in a new way.

Agreed.

Scholars work to reconstruct the most accurate text possible. Old Testament texts are reflected in the New Testament. So we can see how the Apostles of Christ interpreted the Old Testament. And of course most significant is how the Savior Himself explained the religion of Abraham.

Many religious people of this day, do not realize the process , and history of how a modern Bible came to be. And many people belong to religious traditions that are holding on to certain fables on what the Bible is really about, and its nature.

Here is a link http://en.wikipedia....ki/Aleppo_Codex

(of course a wiki link does not represent what is necessarily accurate in a comprehensive manner. But I like a wiki because if indicates the relative popularity of certain subjects, ideas, people and topics).

Scholars keep occupied with issues related to your comment. The informational condition of a text that is many generations from an original is complicated. From certain kinds of editing, interpolations, deletions, and even mistakes, the clues to the development of the Hebrew religion and its various branches can be revealed.

Finding old texts with changes in not a bad thing, rather it is a good thing. It provides insights into the past, and why we are the way we art today, and how me can make improvements.

Nevertheless, scholars can only do so much - we will never know precisely what the original texts were like. They have been altered - yet we can only detect so much. They will never be able to fully restore those texts, save by a miracle of God. Luckily, I believe a miracle of God happened through the BoM - which doesn't happen to be corrupted.

We also have the JST - but that isn't fully complete yet - Joseph was clearing interpretations through the JST constantly during his life - and so there may be more that has not yet been revealed.

I would say that both what the scripture says, and what the spirit tells us matters.

It is true that we can read a certain passage over and over for years, and one day we read it again, and the spirit gives to us new and added meanings to that same passage. This kind of epiphany phenomena is facilitated by a number of factors, like life experiences, a current life situation, obedience to God

[Ahab]

Rob,

Do you agree or not agree that the phrase "the gift of the Holy Ghost" is a phrase that has more than only one meaning?

If you do, do you see how someone could correctly say Cornelius received "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in one sense, while also saying he didn't receive "the gift of the Holy Ghost" in another sense, with the key being in correctly understanding what that person meant when he said that?

I can, and if you need me to explain it to you, just ask me. Or better yet, just ask God to explain it to you.

[Rob Bowman]

There once was a man named Jack Jones. Jack claimed to be the oracle of God and the founder of the one true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days. According to Jack, in these last days the Lord has no use for ordinances or rituals; they were tolerated among the Jews in the first century but have since been done away. No one ever needed to be baptized to be forgiven of sins, and no one ever needed to have hands laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit, and now these blessings are available only to those who reject such rituals and accept the Spirit-only gospel of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days.

One day, Jack was explaining this doctrine to his devoted congregation. He explained to them that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit before Peter and John came to Samaria, and therefore of course before Peter and John laid hands on any of the Samaritan believers. More than a century later, members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days repeatedly quoted with approval Jack's comments about the Samaritans. Leaders of the church, including Jack B. Jones VI, quoted Jack's statement as the authoritative interpretation of the Samaritans' reception of the Holy Spirit. No one in Jack's church ever questioned it; why should they? Jack was the oracle of God. Each member of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days knew in the deepest place in his heart that Jack was the oracle of God.

Then one particularly obnoxious anti-Jack dared to suggest that Jack's comment contradicted what Acts 8 says about the Samaritans. This professional anti-Jack claimed that in Acts 8 the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit until after Peter and John came to Samaria and laid hands on the Samaritan believers. The anti-Jack really crossed the line in suggesting that anyone who was honest would have to admit that Jack was wrong: Jack said the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit before Peter and John laid hands on them, but Acts 8 says the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit after Peter and John laid hands on them. Obviously, the arrogant anti-Jack concluded, one cannot accept both statements; one of them is wrong. Naturally, the anti-Jack assumed that Jack was the one who was wrong.

Loyal, faithful members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days -- labeled "Jackals" by the nefarious anti-Jacks -- quickly pointed out several reasonable explanations. Perhaps Luke was in error; after all, the Bible is not without error, as its unfortunate statement about baptizing people of all nations (Matt. 28:19) illustrates. Then again, perhaps Luke did not err but later copyists made a mistake in copying that portion of Acts. One budding scholar among the so-called Jackals suggested that there was a translation error; perhaps what Luke said is that the Samaritans "took advantage of the Holy Spirit" when the apostles laid hands on them; in other words, that they had already received the Holy Spirit before the apostles even showed up, but when the apostles laid hands on them the Samaritan believers took full advantage of the spiritual power they had received. Another member asked if there wasn't some difference between the expression "receiving the Holy Spirit" and "received the Holy Spirit." Still other thoughtful members of the church argued that what Luke meant by "receiving the Holy Spirit" was something different from what Jack meant by the same expression. What Jack meant was receiving the indwelling presence and power of the Spirit. What Luke meant, these church members explained, was receiving the Spirit as manifested in the apostles--connecting with their experience of the Spirit by having the apostles touch them. All of the members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days, however, knew deep down in their hearts that whoever was mistaken, if anyone at all was mistaken, it wasn't Jack!

The anti-Jack, mired in unbelief, arrogance, and pride, would not accept any of these perfectly reasonable explanations. After all, to admit that a "Jackal" might ever be right would be the end of his professional career as an anti-Jack! So the anti-Jack stubbornly insisted that none of these explanations was acceptable. He argued that Jack had never said anything about Acts 10 being in error, miscopied, or mistranslated (indeed, he pointed out, Acts 10 reads the same in Jack's New and Improved Bible as it does in the old King James). He raised objections against the other suggested explanations as well. Of course, we all know that he wasn't really trying to convince the "Jackals" of anything; he was really just trying to impress his fellow anti-Jacks. Not being willing to look into the deepest part of his heart to know if Jack is the oracle of God, the anti-Jack is doomed to continue to intellectualize the Bible and rationalize his faith instead of accepting Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus of the last days.

This story is taken from Silly Anecdotes To Interest Reasonable Eggheads by Archie Robertson. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely intentional.

[Calm]

In a prior life, I studied linguistics. The case endings that were mentioned are present in a whole lot of languages, including Middle and Old English.

Those case endings make it possible to move things around in sentences without losing meaning.

Man bites dog means something in English, but it's different from Dog bites man.

If you have the endings, you can recognize who's doing the biting and who's getting bit regardless how the words are put together in the sentence.

Think of one of the few words in English that retains the ending: Who/Whom. Who bites the dog vs. The dog bites whom. Whom is in the accusative (direct object) case: Who is in the nominative (subject) case. Thus meaning is not changed, though grammar, which gives meaning to what the words mean when put together in a sentence, is.

Nothing formal/informal about this.

I wonder why the person who made that claim made that unwarranted jump. Perhaps they were confused over thinking it was something like the thou/you issue as opposed to sentence structure.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This story is taken from Silly Anecdotes To Interest Reasonable Eggheads by Archie Robertson. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely intentional.

You sir, are a work of art. Lol.

[Ahab]

There once was a man named Jack Jones. Jack claimed to be the oracle of God and the founder of the one true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days. According to Jack, in these last days the Lord has no use for ordinances or rituals; they were tolerated among the Jews in the first century but have since been done away. No one ever needed to be baptized to be forgiven of sins, and no one ever needed to have hands laid on them to receive the Holy Spirit, and now these blessings are available only to those who reject such rituals and accept the Spirit-only gospel of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days.

One day, Jack was explaining this doctrine to his devoted congregation. He explained to them that the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit before Peter and John came to Samaria, and therefore of course before Peter and John laid hands on any of the Samaritan believers. More than a century later, members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days repeatedly quoted with approval Jack's comments about the Samaritans. Leaders of the church, including Jack B. Jones VI, quoted Jack's statement as the authoritative interpretation of the Samaritans' reception of the Holy Spirit. No one in Jack's church ever questioned it; why should they? Jack was the oracle of God. Each member of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days knew in the deepest place in his heart that Jack was the oracle of God.

Then one particularly obnoxious anti-Jack dared to suggest that Jack's comment contradicted what Acts 8 says about the Samaritans. This professional anti-Jack claimed that in Acts 8 the Samaritans did not receive the Holy Spirit until after Peter and John came to Samaria and laid hands on the Samaritan believers. The anti-Jack really crossed the line in suggesting that anyone who was honest would have to admit that Jack was wrong: Jack said the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit before Peter and John laid hands on them, but Acts 8 says the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit after Peter and John laid hands on them. Obviously, the arrogant anti-Jack concluded, one cannot accept both statements; one of them is wrong. Naturally, the anti-Jack assumed that Jack was the one who was wrong.

Loyal, faithful members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days -- labeled "Jackals" by the nefarious anti-Jacks -- quickly pointed out several reasonable explanations. Perhaps Luke was in error; after all, the Bible is not without error, as its unfortunate statement about baptizing people of all nations (Matt. 28:19) illustrates. Then again, perhaps Luke did not err but later copyists made a mistake in copying that portion of Acts. One budding scholar among the so-called Jackals suggested that there was a translation error; perhaps what Luke said is that the Samaritans "took advantage of the Holy Spirit" when the apostles laid hands on them; in other words, that they had already received the Holy Spirit before the apostles even showed up, but when the apostles laid hands on them the Samaritan believers took full advantage of the spiritual power they had received. Another member asked if there wasn't some difference between the expression "receiving the Holy Spirit" and "received the Holy Spirit." Still other thoughtful members of the church argued that what Luke meant by "receiving the Holy Spirit" was something different from what Jack meant by the same expression. What Jack meant was receiving the indwelling presence and power of the Spirit. What Luke meant, these church members explained, was receiving the Spirit as manifested in the apostles--connecting with their experience of the Spirit by having the apostles touch them. All of the members of Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus on the earth in the last days, however, knew deep down in their hearts that whoever was mistaken, if anyone at all was mistaken, it wasn't Jack!

The anti-Jack, mired in unbelief, arrogance, and pride, would not accept any of these perfectly reasonable explanations. After all, to admit that a "Jackal" might ever be right would be the end of his professional career as an anti-Jack! So the anti-Jack stubbornly insisted that none of these explanations was acceptable. He argued that Jack had never said anything about Acts 10 being in error, miscopied, or mistranslated (indeed, he pointed out, Acts 10 reads the same in Jack's New and Improved Bible as it does in the old King James). He raised objections against the other suggested explanations as well. Of course, we all know that he wasn't really trying to convince the "Jackals" of anything; he was really just trying to impress his fellow anti-Jacks. Not being willing to look into the deepest part of his heart to know if Jack is the oracle of God, the anti-Jack is doomed to continue to intellectualize the Bible and rationalize his faith instead of accepting Jack's true church of the Lord Jesus of the last days.

This story is taken from Silly Anecdotes To Interest Reasonable Eggheads by Archie Robertson. All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely intentional.

All of this reinforces my idea that you are doing what you are doing just for fun, and while trying to be funny.

Here you go: LOL.

Thank you.

[cdowis]

By your question to me, (in my opinion) this proves what I stated in that we ONLY equate the terms "authorty and call" as priesthood. Mary WAS called and given the authority to accomplish the work entrusted to her. We are in a day and time when some ONLY believe the priesthood can receive any form of authority or call to serve God in a profound way.

So what I said is true that we have very limited definations to our words which are limiting to us. It needs to be seen how we are also seeking to limit God as to who he gives authority (or a call) to fulfill his work.

Could Mary perform baptisms, ordain apostles. These are functions of the priesthood. There are callings in the church for which priesthood is unnecessary -- Relief Society president, cub scout leader, building maintenance, etc.

You conflate callings with priesthood callings. That is ok, because you are lead by the light of your own mind and understanding of Biblical writings, rejecting modern revelation. The Lord has revealed the pattern of organization to a modern prophet, and we follow his instruction. Of course we are going to disagree.

[Thunderfire]

Could Mary perform baptisms, ordain apostles. These are functions of the priesthood. There are callings in the church for which priesthood is unnecessary -- Relief Society president, cub scout leader, building maintenance, etc.

It is correct that Mary could not perform the sacraments. Yet she had a profound authority to give birth too and raise "Emmanuel". She was given the authority to birth, nurture, and teach our savior. Again, I have witnessed many people who received a profound authority and call to do works of healing, deliverance from evil spirits, and other things other than "sacramental ministry". I believe that non-priesthood members can also receive the authority to testify of our Eternal Christ!

On a side note, I have experience with the Boy Scout program and I have seen some Scout leaders who carry an anointing and call to help kids in a way many priesthood members cannot reach. Many priesthood members are confined to the work of an organization, never becoming capable of ministering to everyone who crosses their path outside of the churches walls. But then, I have always had the belief that if the priesthood were not capable or faithful in doing the work, the Lord would raise up someone who was. It is not the work of God which is frustrated, but the work of man.

You conflate callings with priesthood callings. That is ok, because you are lead by the light of your own mind and understanding of Biblical writings, rejecting modern revelation. The Lord has revealed the pattern of organization to a modern prophet, and we follow his instruction. Of course we are going to disagree.

Actually I do not reject modern revelation and I am part of a group that expects modern day revelation. So I fully agree with you that the Lord continually reveals his mind and will to modern day prophets!

Where I disagree is in the concept of "authority and call" being confined to priesthood alone. All are called according to the gifts of God within us and that call denotes an anointing to fulfill the responsibility entrusted to the individual

[cdowis]

anointed to a calling is a nonBiblical doctrine. Protestant speak for charisma, spiritual gift, etc but it is the exercise of a gift, not a calling in the same sense as a priesthood calling.

[Hick Preacher]

Too silly to keep

[Ahab]

She was given the authority to birth, nurture, and teach our savior.

People doing what they are told to do isn't what we (LDS) usually have in mind when talking about people receiving "authority" to do something.

Everyone on Earth is told to obey all of God's laws, but not everyone has the authority to tell everyone else what those laws are, in God's name.

Think of a simple analogy, like laws regulating speed on an interstate highway:

Does everyone have government authority to tell everyone else how fast they should go, with everyone having the right to put up their own speed limit signs? Answer: No.

Those who have God's authority to do things on this Earth are like policemen, and judges, and legislators, and Presidents, with people in all 3 branches of government.

The kingdom of God is on this Earth, but not everybody has God's authority to officiate in it.

[Rob Bowman]

Ahab,

You wrote:

All of this reinforces my idea that you are doing what you are doing just for fun, and while trying to be funny.

Here you go: LOL.

Thank you.

No, it doesn't. You don't really think any such thing.

[Thunderfire]

anointed to a calling is a nonBiblical doctrine. Protestant speak for charisma, spiritual gift, etc but it is the exercise of a gift, not a calling in the same sense as a priesthood calling.

Another term we are taught to use is "endowment" or the enhanced capacity to minister. This is where the Lord Jesus Christ conveys his grace and presence to the individual he sends in his name. In his name, whomever he calls will do the work he does and even greater! In it's most basic sense, the true concept of "endowment" is an anointing from the Lord. This many believe is a biblical doctrine (or at least one which Joseph Smith taught).

I do not believe the term "anointing" is a non-biblical concept or doctrine. Just a term not fully understood by all. In some priesthood practices, we find certain denominations using "olive oil" which is placed on the individuals head as being symbolic of the "anointing or outpouring" of the Holy Spirit which is sought for the individual being prayed for. I'm not sure if this is an LDS practice for administrations, but many restoration factions do in fact anoint with oil and explain the concept of anointing.

[Thunderfire]

People doing what they are told to do isn't what we (LDS) usually have in mind when talking about people receiving "authority" to do something.

I understand and would like to offer some examples to further clarify my point.

Typically what many see as priesthood ministry is what we read as the "duties of a particular office" within the hierarchy of their denomination. Each office has a set pattern and limitations of authority within the chain of command. But what about Elijah on Mount Carmel? No where are we told that the duties of any office is to call down fire from heaven, or to make the flour and oil not run dry for the widow (whose son he raised from the dead). Elijah was given a task and received the authority to do what the Lord laid out before him.

No where are we told that Deborah had priesthood authority, yet she is considered one of the great "judges over Israel" through the authority granted her by God. Whatever work God calls anyone to accomplish for his will and for his glory will be given the authority to accomplish what was laid out before them.

So in my opinion, this is not an issue of being told to do something, it is the reality of how God chooses certain individuals to assist him in his work and the resulting authority given to complete the task given. It is our honor to be chosen and should be an extremely humbling experience to be entrusted with the gifts of heaven, the very heart of the Lord, to join him in his work.

[zerinus]

Ahab,

You wrote:

No, it doesn't. You don't really think any such thing.

I don't. I think that you have just lost the argument, and know it, but don't know how to admit it.

[cdowis]

I understand and would like to offer some examples to further clarify my point.

I understand you are struggling with things that you do not fully understand, lead by the light of your own wisdom.

Typically what many see as priesthood ministry is what we read as the "duties of a particular office" within the hierarchy of their denomination. Each office has a set pattern and limitations of authority within the chain of command. But what about Elijah on Mount Carmel? No where are we told that the duties of any office is to call down fire from heaven, or to make the flour and oil not run dry for the widow (whose son he raised from the dead). Elijah was given a task and received the authority to do what the Lord laid out before him.

The Lord does not need to tell Pres. Monson to visit a particular stake. He visits a specific mission, he may even go to the nursing home and visit the patients there. A calling involves doing what it necessary without being commanded in all things.

You might find the following of interest. this is called "magnifying your calling" ==>>

DC 58: 26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27 Verily I say, men should be aanxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

No where are we told that Deborah had priesthood authority, yet she is considered one of the great "judges over Israel" through the authority granted her by God. Whatever work God calls anyone to accomplish for his will and for his glory will be given the authority to accomplish what was laid out before them.

And we also have general presidents of the Relief Society and the Primary, called of God with no requirement for the priesthood.

So in my opinion, this is not an issue of being told to do something, it is the reality of how God chooses certain individuals to assist him in his work and the resulting authority given to complete the task given. It is our honor to be chosen and should be an extremely humbling experience to be entrusted with the gifts of heaven, the very heart of the Lord, to join him in his work.

Thanks for sharing with us your personal opinions. But I think I will stick with the revelations rather than the wisdom of man.

[Thunderfire]

I understand you are struggling with things that you do not fully understand' date=' lead by the light of your own wisdom.

[/quote']

Aren't we all?

I acknowledge that this was an attempt to speak down to me, even call me to repentance (and I ask everyone's forgiveness in taking this discussion further away from the theme of the opening post). I accept this statement knowing full well that while the intent was less than noble, the words are still true. All of us struggle with both insecurities and pride in our beliefs. And yes, even though we don't want to admit it, we are lead by the light of our own wisdom.

Yesterday I read an interesting account of a man who had an encounter with the Lord. During this visitation experience much was conveyed, yet one aspect particularly stood out. The man was told that even when the Apostle Paul was moving in a greater light, he still only "understood in part" of the Lords ways and desires. It is human nature to "come and go" from the presence of the Lord and we fool ourselves into thinking any of us live in total unity with God all the time.

Here is a reality we all need to consider. If we are not moving in the ministry of signs and wonders (doing the works Jesus did), if we are not having visions and the mysteries of the kingdom revealed to us, then the answer is that we are still subject to "being led by the light of our wisdom." It is not a bad thing, personal revelation never is which is at the heart of repentance. The bad thing is how we share counsel to others that we are not following as well. This is when we become a hypocrite (like the Pharisees).

DC 58: 26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

27 Verily I say, men should be aanxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;

28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

This is a wonderful verse for sure, yet it does not speak to my comment. I offered examples of Elijah calling down fire from heaven or feeding the widow with an unending bounty. The reason why this type of authority is not seen in the ministry of many is because they would apply this verse to the use of the gifts and power of God. They would use this authority for their own free will instead of for the glory of God and when God commands it.

Reading further down in that verse we find: "I command and man obeys not, I revoke and they receive not the blessing; then they say in their hearts, this is not the work of the Lord, for his promises are not fulfilled. But woe to such, for their reward lurketh beneath, and not from above..."

It is true that President Monson does not need to be commanded regarding which stake he needs to visit, to feed the hungry or clothe the naked. We are to be anxiously engaged in a good work. Yet we are many ways more like James and John who got mad at some Samaritans when they would not accept Jesus visit. They asked if they could "call down fire upon the village and destroy them!" (Luke 9:52-54) Of course Jesus rebuked them and they learned a valuable lesson on why many are not giving the authority (and anointing) of Elijah.

Think about some of these discussions and how we at times speak to one another. Some use very fiery words and accusations. Can you image what would happen if they actually had the authority to call down fire from heaven? We need to acknowledge that there is a BIG difference between doing things on our own free will, verse using the greater power and authority of God through our own free will. We would become such an enemy of God, even worse than the adversary.

I wrote:

No where are we told that Deborah had priesthood authority, yet she is considered one of the great "judges over Israel" through the authority granted her by God. Whatever work God calls anyone to accomplish for his will and for his glory will be given the authority to accomplish what was laid out before them.

You responded:

And we also have general presidents of the Relief Society and the Primary, called of God with no requirement for the priesthood.

I understand the sentiment here. Yet we must be honest with ourselves in that being a "Judge over Israel" is much different than a Relief Society or primary president. A judge over Israel is more equal to the President of the Church or Presiding Bishop. But my comments were not directed at "women in the Priesthood", rather about a work much greater than we can accomplish without the direct empowerment and anointing from God.

Frankly, I do not think that any of us has the paradigm for understanding the difference in what Elijah did and what we do in our local congregations. We do not expect this in our day, nor do I believe we are capable of operating in this realm of "doing greater works." Yet this will change because the Lord says it must change.

Thanks for your comments and I hope you accept mine in the spirit they are given.

[cdowis]

I acknowledge that this was an attempt to speak down to me, even call me to repentance (and I ask everyone's forgiveness in taking this discussion further away from the theme of the opening post). I accept this statement knowing full well that while the intent was less than noble, the words are still true. All of us struggle with both insecurities and pride in our beliefs. And yes, even though we don't want to admit it, we are lead by the light of our own wisdom.

No insult intended, only a teaching point.

You might give some thought on the difference between Saul and Paul. What made them different ==>>

• Saul the Pharasee rejected Jesus as the Messiah because he was drawing upon the light of his own wisdom as he read the hebrew scriptures. "This Jesus does not match what I see in the scriptures."
  Paul the prophet drew upon the living word of God, as he accepted the living prophets and received the calling of a prophet.

Same person, same intelligence, but one relied upon the light of his own wisdom, the latter upon living prophets and revelation.

Now there may or may not be a lesson for you here, as it applies in our discussion. Again, no insult intended, but trying to help a brother Saul, trained in the philosophies of man and theology, to see the error of his whole approach to understanding the Gospel.

[PacMan]

Rob,

As semantically annal as you are trying to be, your proof-text completely crumbles. On numerous occasions, albeit in different ways, you have said that "Luke says explicitly that the Gentiles of Cornelius's household received "the gift of the Holy Spirit," not just the Holy Spirit."

Really? He says it

[Rob Bowman]

PacMan,

"Semantically annal"?

Apparently, you sincerely do not realize how silly your argument sounds. Luke says that "the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also" (v. 45). You wish to claim that this is not the same thing as "receiving" the gift of the Holy Spirit. Somehow you seem to think that these Gentiles got a "gift" without them "receiving" the gift. This allows you to claim that when Luke quotes Peter as commenting that they "have received the Holy Spirit" (v. 47) this means something other than the gift of the Holy Spirit. But the idea that they got a gift without receiving it is palpable nonsense!

Acts uses several expressions to describe the coming of the Holy Spirit on the Gentiles of Cornelius's household:

"the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the word" (10:44)

"the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also" (10:45)

they "have received the Holy Spirit just as we have" (10:47)

"the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning" (11:15)

"And I remembered the word of the Lord... 'you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit'" (11:16)

"And God, who knows the heart, testified to them, giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us" (15:8 )

These texts in context provide no basis or justification for drawing any distinctions of reference among these differing expressions. The Holy Spirit fell on them; God gave the Holy Spirit to them; they received the Holy Spirit; the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on them; they were baptized with the Holy Spirit. Three times Peter states that this had happened to the Gentiles just as it had to the Jewish believers at the beginning, and each of these three statements uses a different expression: received, fell on, and giving. Just as "giving" and "received" obviously go together (God gave, the Gentiles received), likewise "gift" and "received" obviously go together in 10:45, 47 (the Gentiles received the gift). Similarly, that the Holy Spirit "fell on them" is just another way of saying that the Holy Spirit was "poured out on them"; the fact that Luke says "the gift of the Holy Spirit" instead of simply "the Holy Spirit" does not change this fact.

You commented: "Whether they had understood it completely or articulated it differently, or whether the precise message was lost in translation or Luke just flubbed is a consideration, but ultimately unimportant." Your statement here beautifully illustrates one of the main points that my satire seeks to make: you are willing to consider almost any explanation other than the obvious one that Joseph Smith "flubbed"!

Rob,

As semantically annal as you are trying to be, your proof-text completely crumbles. On numerous occasions, albeit in different ways, you have said that "Luke says explicitly that the Gentiles of Cornelius's household received "the gift of the Holy Spirit," not just the Holy Spirit."

Really? He says it

[PacMan]

Rob,

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

You wish to claim that this is not the same thing as "receiving" the gift of the Holy Spirit. Somehow you seem to think that these Gentiles got a "gift" without them "receiving" the gift.

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