Conference tecrus::mormonism

================================================================================
Note 10.17          Cults: A Non-Biblical Source of Authority           17 of 18
FXADM::SELIMA                                         7 lines   4-FEB-1988 05:31
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ooops,
      Sorry for dumping it all in your lap Allen - I had you on my mind
    after reading note #4 and carried it over into Rich's note. I realize
    there's lots of respondants to THIS note, after engaging my brain.
    
    
                                                                   Chuck

    Re: Note 22.0 by Chuck Selima
    
    Hi Chuck,
    
>         ...since you have derived your description of the function
>   and importance of Apostles in the modern church from the traditional
>   Protestant Bible, 
 
    Actually, this has not been so much derived from the Bible, as from
    revelation from the Lord, who revealed to Joseph Smith that twelve
    apostles should be called and ordained, just as had been done in
    Bible days. Certainly, this is corroborated by the Bible.
    
>   do you also ascribe to that office the miracle
>   working power of the Holy Ghost? Specifically, do your apostles
>   raise the dead back to life, restore the sight of the blind, etc.
>     Do they speak in tongues and cast out demons? Does the book of
>   Mormon comment on this Holy Ghost power as operating in the church
>   today?
    
    The seventh Article of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
    Saints reads:
    
         We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation,
         visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
         
    The great Book of Mormon prophet, Moroni, the same one that Joseph
    Smith received the gold plates from, wrote this in the Book of Mormon:
    
         I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God;
         for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the
         children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever.
         
         And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not
         the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from
         the same God. And there are different ways that these
         gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh
         all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of
         the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them.

         For behold, to one is given by the Spirit of God, that
         he may teach the word of wisdom;
         
         And to another, that he may teach the word of knowledge
         by the same Spirit;
         
         And to another, exceedingly great faith; and to another,
         the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;
         
         And again, to another, that he may work mighty miracles;
         
         And again, to another, that he may prophesy concerning
         all things;
         
         And again, to another, the beholding of angels and
         ministering spirits;
         
         And again, to another, all kinds of tongues;
         
         And again, to another, the interpretation of languages
         and of divers kinds of tongues.
         
         And all these gifts come by the Spirit of Christ; and
         they come unto every man severally, according as he will.
         
         And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember
         that every good gift cometh of Christ.
         
         And I would exhort you, my beloved brethren, that ye remember
         that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and
         that all these gifts of which I have spoken, which are
         spiritual, never will be done away, even as long as the
         world shall stand, only according to the unbelief of the
         children of men.  (Moroni 10:7-19)
         
    These spiritual gifts and the others that you mentioned are operating
    in the church today, and are not limited to the Apostles.
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
                      

    Rich,
      Your response was interesting, particularly because it's not what
    I anticipated. Can you tell me what gifts you've seen manifested
    in your church, and how they were manifested? Do you have any idea
    what percentange of the adult LDS population exhibits signs of the
    gifts in operation? What gifts occur most frequently? Least frequently?
      Do people in your church function in specific ministries based
    on the gift(s) they've received? What size shoe do you wear? 8>)
    
    
                                                       Thanks in advance,
    
                                                                  Chuck

    Re Note 22.4 by Chuck Selima
    
    Hi Chuck,
    
>     Your response was interesting, particularly because it's not what
>   I anticipated. Can you tell me what gifts you've seen manifested
>   in your church, and how they were manifested? Do you have any idea
>   what percentage of the adult LDS population exhibits signs of the
>   gifts in operation? What gifts occur most frequently? Least frequently?
>     Do people in your church function in specific ministries based
>   on the gift(s) they've received? What size shoe do you wear? 8>)

    I don't really know how to answer. Suffice it to say that I think
    most active members of the church have experienced the Gifts of
    the Spirit in one way or another. We tend to believe that such gifts
    are to be regarded with great respect, and so we are careful about
    how we speak of them, lest it should appear as boasting.
    
    The ministries, or "callings", as we refer to them, that a person
    receives come by revelation to the leaders of the church. The Lord
    often gives spiritual gifts to those who have accepted a calling, in
    order to help them to accomplish it. For example, I was called to serve
    as a full-time missionary at age 19 for two years in Finland. Finnish
    is a very difficult language to learn, but I know that the Lord gave me
    a gift to learn it and use it effectively in my missionary labors. 
    
    Shoe size: 10.5 (we aim to please :-)
    
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
    

Hi Chuck,

In 4.31 I have posted some general comments about the Holy Ghost using
Biblical scriptures.  In a few days I will post to note 4 a reply giving
Book of Mormon teachings about the Holy Ghost.

Allen

Chuck,

I've posted 4.39 which discusses Book of Mormon teachings about the Holy
Ghost, including the question about the Holy Ghost being in the Church
today.

Allen

    This topic is being started to discuss the Gift of the Holy Ghost. The
    first few notes were moved here from topic 208, in order to prevent
    that topic from fragmenting.
    
    Rich

================================================================================
Note 208.2            Catholic position on Mormon baptisms                2 of 5
WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON "A white stone with my new name."   9 lines  13-FEB-1989 10:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    A question, out of curiosity, for you Rich.
    
    In your last reply you mentioned that the Holy Spirit is given
    through the laying on of hands. You didn't mean this as an exclusive
    means by any chance did you?
    
    Just wondering,
    Charlie

================================================================================
Note 208.4            Catholic position on Mormon baptisms                4 of 5
RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       63 lines  13-FEB-1989 14:43
                          -< Gift of the Holy Ghost >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Re: Note 208.2 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Nice to hear from you again, Charlie.
    
>   In your last reply you mentioned that the Holy Spirit is given
>   through the laying on of hands. You didn't mean this as an exclusive
>   means by any chance did you?

    No, this is not the exclusive means by which the influence or ministry
    of the Holy Ghost is received. However, the Gift of the Holy Ghost
    is a specific gift that members of the church receive, and they
    receive it by the laying on of hands by one having authority to
    do so. Perhaps the best example of this from the Bible is this:
    
         He [Paul] said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since
         ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as
         heard whether there be any Holy ghost.
         
         And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And
         they said, Unto John's baptism.
         
         Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of
         repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe
         on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
         
         When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the
         Lord Jesus.
         
         And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost
         came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
         (Acts 19:2-6)
    
    Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon received a revelation in 1830 that
    touches on this as well. Sidney Rigdon had been a minister of another
    faith, before he joined the Mormon church. 
         
         Listen to the voice of the Lord your god, even Alpha and Omega,
         the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round,
         the same today as yesterday, and forever.
         
         I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the
         sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name,
         that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am
         one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may
         be one.
         
         Behold, verily, verily, I say unto my servant Sidney, I have
         looked upon thee and they works. I have heard thy prayers,
         and prepared thee for a greater work.
         
         Thou art blessed, for thou shalt do great things. Behold thou
         wast sent forth, even as John, to prepare the way before me,
         and before Elijah which should come, and thou knewest it not.
         
         Thou didst baptize by water unto repentance, but they received
         not the Holy Ghost;
         
         But now I give unto thee a commandment, that thou shalt baptize
         by water, and they shall receive the Holy Ghost by the laying
         on of hands, even as the apostles of old. (D&C 35:1-6)
    
    Rich 
    

================================================================================
Note 208.5            Catholic position on Mormon baptisms                5 of 5
WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON "A white stone with my new name."  28 lines  13-FEB-1989 15:03
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: Note 208.4 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       

>    Nice to hear from you again, Charlie.
 
     Thanks for the quick response.
   
>>   In your last reply you mentioned that the Holy Spirit is given
>>   through the laying on of hands. You didn't mean this as an exclusive
>>   means by any chance did you?

>    No, this is not the exclusive means by which the influence or ministry
>    of the Holy Ghost is received. However, the Gift of the Holy Ghost
>    is a specific gift that members of the church receive, and they
>    receive it by the laying on of hands by one having authority to
>    do so. 

     If I understand correctly, you are making a distinction based upon the
     'gift' of the Holy Ghost being requested to be received, by laying on of 
     hands, as opposed to occasions where the Holy Ghost was spiritually given 
     without the need to have hands laid upon someone?

     Your example from Acts 19 speaks to the 'laying on of hands' method,
     but there also seems to be the 'spontaneous' method as well such as
     in Acts 10:44-48. Would you agree that the gift can also be received
     this way and how does this square with Mormon teaching?

     Best regards,
     Charlie    
                                                                              ================================================================================

    Re: Note 208.5 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

>    Your example from Acts 19 speaks to the 'laying on of hands' method,
>    but there also seems to be the 'spontaneous' method as well such as
>    in Acts 10:44-48. Would you agree that the gift can also be received
>    this way and how does this square with Mormon teaching?

    In the Book of Mormon there is this promise:
         
         And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye
         would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these
         things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart,
         with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the
         truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the
         power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
         (Moroni 10:4-5)
    
    A person need not have been already baptized and already have received
    the Gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands in order for the
    Holy Ghost to reveal to him the truth of it. By the same token, the
    Holy Ghost will reveal the truth  of many other things, to them that
    are sincere, and ask in faith. A person may receive the Holy Ghost as a
    Comforter or otherwise feel its presence, without having received it by
    the laying on of hands.
    
    However, as I understand it, these manifestations of the Holy Ghost are
    more or less temporary, and differ from the Gift of the Holy Ghost,
    which *is* received by the laying on of hands. It is a special gift
    that is given to them who are baptized members of the church. When a
    person has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, he has the right to the
    constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, providing he is striving to
    live righteously. When he willfully disobeys the commandments of God,
    the Holy Ghost withdraws and is grieved. We must constantly strive to
    be in tune with the promptings that come from the Holy Ghost. 
    
    There are some examples in the Bible of manifestations of the Holy
    Ghost without reference to the laying on of hands. In some cases, these
    events may refer to the "temporary" type of Holy Ghost influence,
    and/or, in other cases, may simply have been incomplete descriptions of
    the events that took place in conjunction with receiving the Holy
    Ghost. 
    
    Hope this helps. Anyone is welcome to correct me, if I've missed
    anything.
    
    Rich
        

RE:Note 210.4 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       

    Hi Rich,

    >A person may receive the Holy Ghost as a
    >Comforter or otherwise feel its presence, without having received it by
    >the laying on of hands.
    
    Would you say in this case that a person would also need 'laying on
    of hands' as well?

    >However, as I understand it, these manifestations of the Holy Ghost are
    >more or less temporary, and differ from the Gift of the Holy Ghost,
    >which *is* received by the laying on of hands. It is a special gift
    >that is given to them who are baptized members of the church. When a
    >person has received the Gift of the Holy Ghost, he has the right to the
    >constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, providing he is striving to
    >live righteously. 

    There are two points of confusion here for me Rich. First, understanding
    your basis for why these situations would be only temporary and second,
    why these situations would not also be considered the 'gift' of the Holy
    Ghost. I agree that the gift can, and was, administered by apostles
    through the laying on of hands, yet there are clearly other situations
    where the 'gift' was imparted without laying on of hands as I mentioned
    before but I'll reproduce the wording here for the benefit of others
    who may not have a Bible handy;

       "While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on
        all of them which heard the word. And they of the circumcision
        which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter,
        because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the *gift*
        of the Holy Ghost."    Acts 10:44,45

    After this the Gentiles were baptized and yet no mention is ever made
    of having hands laid on them by any of the apostles.

    Should only an apostle 'lay hands' on someone to receive the Holy Ghost?

    In Acts Chapter 9 we read of a man named Ananias, who is called only
    'a certain disciple' [v.10] who went and laid hands on Paul so that
    he could receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Ghost [v.17].

    Charlie       

    Re: Note 210.5 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Hi Charlie,
    
    You have asked some very good questions! I've had to go off and do a
    little digging... 
    
    There is one account from the Holy Bible that I neglected to mention
    previously that shows that the bestowal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost
    by the laying on of hands was considered necessary. Phillip had taught
    the people in Samaria, and they were baptized. 
    
         Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria
         had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
         Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might
         receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of
         them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then
         laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
         (Acts 8:14-17) 
    
>   >A person may receive the Holy Ghost as a
>   >Comforter or otherwise feel its presence, without having received it by
>   >the laying on of hands.
>   
>   Would you say in this case that a person would also need 'laying on
>   of hands' as well?
         
    Yes.     
    
>   There are two points of confusion here for me Rich. First, understanding
>   your basis for why these situations would be only temporary and second,
>   why these situations would not also be considered the 'gift' of the Holy
>   Ghost. I agree that the gift can, and was, administered by apostles
>   through the laying on of hands, yet there are clearly other situations
>   where the 'gift' was imparted without laying on of hands 
    
    Certainly any time a person receives any part or portion of the Holy
    Ghost's influence or presence, it could be called a 'gift' from God.
    But we differentiate such a 'gift' from *the* Gift of the Holy Ghost,
    which we believe is received by the laying on of hands. Below I have
    included some text from "Mormon Doctrine", a book written by the late
    Bruce R. McConkie, who was an LDS apostle until he died a few years
    ago, that explains more clearly the LDS position on this. 

>   After this the Gentiles were baptized and yet no mention is ever made
>   of having hands laid on them by any of the apostles.
    
    True enough. However, there are many other things the apostles and
    Jesus did that are not recorded in the Holy Bible, as the Holy Bible
    itself testifies. Latter-day Saints would tend to believe that these
    converts on the day of Pentecost did later receive the Gift of the Holy
    Ghost by the laying on of hands, subsequent to their baptism, which
    Peter commanded them to receive.
    
>   Should only an apostle 'lay hands' on someone to receive the Holy Ghost?
                                                                 
    No. In the example above, Phillip had baptized the saints in Samaria,
    but did not bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost. In latter day scripture,
    we learn that authority to baptize is included in the lesser, or
    Aaronic Priesthood, while authority to bestow the Gift of the Holy
    Ghost is included in the greater, or Melchizedek Priesthood.
    Apparently, Phillip did not hold the greater priesthood at this time. 
    
    When John the Baptist came and ordained Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery
    with the Priesthood of Aaron, they were told to baptize each other, and
    that later they would receive the greater priesthood which contained
    the authority to bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Any person who
    holds the Melchizedek Priesthood may bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost
    upon one who has been baptized. 
    
    In the church today, any worthy man can hold this priesthood. In my
    case, I have had the pleasure of baptizing each of my children, as they
    reach the age of accountability (eight years old), and bestowing upon
    them the Gift of the Holy Ghost. I am able to trace the source of my
    priesthood authority back through the apostles to Jesus Christ.
    Likewise, my father baptized me and bestowed the Gift of the Holy Ghost
    upon me. 

    Now for the excerpt from "Mormon Doctrine":
         
         "There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the gift of the
         Holy Ghost," the Prophet [Joseph Smith] taught. (Teachings, p.199)
         As the third member of the Godhead, the Holy Ghost is a Personage
         of Spirit; the gift of the Holy ghost, however, is the right,
         based on faithfulness, to the constant companionship of that
         member of the Godhead.  It is the right to receive revelation,
         guidance, light, and truth from the Spirit. "The presentation or
         'gift' of the Holy Ghost," President Joseph F. Smith said, "simply
         confers upon a man the right to receive at any time, when he is
         worthy of it and desires it, the power and light of truth of the
         Holy Ghost, although he may often be left to his own spirit and
         judgment." (Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., pp. 60-61.) 
         
         Joseph Smith explained: "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. 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." (Teachings, p. 199.) 
         
         In similar manner, in this day, many nonmembers of the Church, "by
         the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moro. 10:4-5), learn that the Book
         of Mormon is true, or that Joseph Smith is a Prophet of God, but
         unless they repent and are baptized that flash of testimony leaves
         them. They never receive the continuing, renewed assurance that
         comes from the companionship of that Spirit Being whose mission it
         is to whisper to the spirits within men. (Teachings, pp. 198-199.) 
         
         Further, the fact that a person has had hands laid on his head and
         a legal administrator has declared, "Receive the Holy Ghost," does
         not guarantee that the gift itself has actually been enjoyed. The
         gift of the Holy Ghost is the *right* to have the constant
         companionship of the Spirit; the actual *enjoyment* of the gift,
         the *actual receipt of the companionship* of the Spirit, is based
         on personal righteousness; it does not come unless and until the
         person is worthy to receive it. The Spirit will not dwell in an
         unclean tabernacle. (1 Cor. 3:16-17;6:19.) Those who actually
         enjoy the gift or presentment of the Holy Ghost are the ones who
         are born again, who have become new creatures of the Holy Ghost.
         (Mosiah 27:24-26.) 
         
         Even a righteous person is often left to himself so that he does
         not at all times enjoy the promptings of revelation and light from
         the Holy Ghost. "Every elder of the Church who has received the
         Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands, by one having authority, has
         power to confer that gift upon another; it does not follow that a
         man who has received the presentation or gift of the Holy Ghost
         shall always receive the recognition and witness and presence of
         the Holy ghost himself; or he may receive all these, and yet the
         Holy Ghost not tarry with him, but visit him from time to time
         (D&C 130:23); and neither does it follow that a man must have the
         Holy ghost present with him when he confers the Holy Ghost upon
         another, but he possesses the gift of the Holy Ghost, and it will
         depend upon the worthiness of him unto whom the gift is bestowed
         whether he receives the Holy Ghost or not." (Gospel Doctrine, 5th
         ed., p. 61.) 
         
         (From Mormon Doctrine, pages 312-313)
         
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich     
                     

RE: Note 210.6 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                      

    Hi Rich,
    
    >You have asked some very good questions! I've had to go off and do a
    >little digging... 
    
    I try. :)

    >There is one account from the Holy Bible that I neglected to mention
    >previously that shows that the bestowal of the Gift of the Holy Ghost
    >by the laying on of hands was considered necessary. Phillip had taught
    >the people in Samaria, and they were baptized. 
    
     I guess the question here is, was Philip an Apostle and if so, why
     wasn't he able to administer the gift of the Holy Ghost? This is an
     important question because the inference would be that this ministration
     was only given to the original Apostles [including Paul] and might
     not have been transferable.

     We read in Acts 6:1-5, that the original Apostles were getting burnt-out
     trying to deal with all the new converts. They then decided to appoint
     7 new leaders to handle the daily ministrations. It's interesting to note
     that this was accomplished through the laying on of hands of the Apostles
     upon these 7 new men. The requirements for these men were that they be
     '..of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom..' and Philip was
     named among them. Exactly what purpose did they lay hands on Philip for
     if he was unable to latter confer the gift of the Holy Spirit?   

    >Certainly any time a person receives any part or portion of the Holy
    >Ghost's influence or presence, it could be called a 'gift' from God.
    >But we differentiate such a 'gift' from *the* Gift of the Holy Ghost,
    >which we believe is received by the laying on of hands. 

     What basis can you offer to show that a person may receive only a
     part or portion of the Holy Ghost given that Latter-day teachings
     indicate the Holy Ghost is a personage?

>>   After this the Gentiles were baptized and yet no mention is ever made
>>   of having hands laid on them by any of the apostles.
    
>    True enough. However, there are many other things the apostles and
>    Jesus did that are not recorded in the Holy Bible, as the Holy Bible
>    itself testifies. Latter-day Saints would tend to believe that these
>    converts on the day of Pentecost did later receive the Gift of the Holy
>    Ghost by the laying on of hands, subsequent to their baptism, which
>    Peter commanded them to receive.
 
     Agreed, yet the Biblical scriptures are conspicuously silent on this
     aspect. After Peter's long discourse on the day of Pentecost, his hearers
     ask, 'Brethren, what shall we do?' [Acts 2:37], to which Peter responds,
     'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
     for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the _gift_ of the Holy
     Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all
     that are afar off, even as many as our LORD shall call.' [vs. 38,39]

     No mention in the above of the necessity of laying on of hands.
   
>>   Should only an apostle 'lay hands' on someone to receive the Holy Ghost?
                                                                 
>    No. In the example above, Phillip had baptized the saints in Samaria,
>    but did not bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost. In latter day scripture,
>    we learn that authority to baptize is included in the lesser, or
>    Aaronic Priesthood, while authority to bestow the Gift of the Holy
>    Ghost is included in the greater, or Melchizedek Priesthood.
>    Apparently, Phillip did not hold the greater priesthood at this time. 
 
     As I tried to show above, Philip did have hands laid on him by the
     Apostles. How do the Latter-day writings explain the different priesthoods
     and methods of appointments. I don't remember reading any differenciation
     of priesthoods in the Bible.
   
     Regards,
     Charlie                             

    Re: Note 210.7 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Hi Charlie,

    Yes, some more good questions!
    
>    I guess the question here is, was Philip an Apostle and if so, why
>    wasn't he able to administer the gift of the Holy Ghost? This is an
>    important question because the inference would be that this ministration
>    was only given to the original Apostles [including Paul] and might
>    not have been transferable.
    
    I do not know of anywhere that indicates that this Philip was an
    apostle. Latter-day Saints do not believe that the power to bestow the
    Gift of the Holy Ghost was reserved only for the apostles, but rather
    for those who hold the proper priesthood authority. This is one of the
    reasons for the different offices mentioned in the church organization
    in the Bible. We do, however, believe that the apostles are the ones
    who hold the keys to this power, and thus have the responsibility to
    authorize who will receive this priesthood. Thus living apostles are
    important to the functioning of the church. 
    
>    We read in Acts 6:1-5, that the original Apostles were getting burnt-out
>    trying to deal with all the new converts. They then decided to appoint
>    7 new leaders to handle the daily ministrations. It's interesting to note
>    that this was accomplished through the laying on of hands of the Apostles
>    upon these 7 new men. The requirements for these men were that they be
>    '..of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom..' and Philip was
>    named among them. Exactly what purpose did they lay hands on Philip for
>    if he was unable to latter confer the gift of the Holy Spirit?   
    
    From an LDS viewpoint, we would say that these men were ordained
    to their office or calling. They were probably also ordained with the
    Aaronic priesthood, judging from the later account of Philip's
    ministry. Such ordinations are also accomplished by the laying on
    of hands, which is different than bestowing the Gift of the Holy
    Ghost by the laying on of hands.
    
>    What basis can you offer to show that a person may receive only a
>    part or portion of the Holy Ghost given that Latter-day teachings
>    indicate the Holy Ghost is a personage?
    
    There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the influence of the
    Holy Ghost, much the same way as there is a difference between the sun
    and the light and heat that emanate from the sun. The Holy Ghost is a
    personage, but He is capable of having his influence felt by many
    people at once. 
    
>    Agreed, yet the Biblical scriptures are conspicuously silent on this
>    aspect. After Peter's long discourse on the day of Pentecost, his hearers
>    ask, 'Brethren, what shall we do?' [Acts 2:37], to which Peter responds,
>    'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
>    for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the _gift_ of the Holy
>    Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all
>    that are afar off, even as many as our LORD shall call.' [vs. 38,39]
>
>    No mention in the above of the necessity of laying on of hands.
    
    He does not mention *how* they will receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost,
    just as he does not mention *how* they will be baptized. I have no
    doubt that these converts were taken and shown how these things were to
    be accomplished. 
    
>>>   Should only an apostle 'lay hands' on someone to receive the Holy Ghost?
>                                                                
>>    No. In the example above, Phillip had baptized the saints in Samaria,
>>    but did not bestow the Gift of the Holy Ghost. In latter day scripture,
>>    we learn that authority to baptize is included in the lesser, or
>>    Aaronic Priesthood, while authority to bestow the Gift of the Holy
>>    Ghost is included in the greater, or Melchizedek Priesthood.
>>    Apparently, Phillip did not hold the greater priesthood at this time. 
>
>    As I tried to show above, Philip did have hands laid on him by the
>    Apostles. How do the Latter-day writings explain the different priesthoods
>    and methods of appointments. I don't remember reading any differentiation
>    of priesthoods in the Bible.

    If you will look at Hebrews 7, you will see references to the Levitical
    (Aaronic) priesthood, as well as the Melchizedek priesthood. This
    chapter does not spell out what the differences are in great measure,
    and is not a complete "handbook" for these priesthoods, but does
    indicate the differentiation between them. 
    
    Actually, the knowledge of the priesthood(s) is one of the things that
    Latter-day Saints believe was, in large measure, lost through apostasy.
    The Doctrine and Covenants contains revelations that restore this
    knowledge. If you'd like, I'd be glad to start a new topic to discuss
    the priesthood(s). 
    
    Rich

RE: Note 210.8 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       

    Hi Rich,
        
    >I do not know of anywhere that indicates that this Philip was an
    >apostle. Latter-day Saints do not believe that the power to bestow the
    >Gift of the Holy Ghost was reserved only for the apostles, but rather
    >for those who hold the proper priesthood authority. This is one of the
    >reasons for the different offices mentioned in the church organization
    >in the Bible. We do, however, believe that the apostles are the ones
    >who hold the keys to this power, and thus have the responsibility to
    >authorize who will receive this priesthood. Thus living apostles are
    >important to the functioning of the church. 
    
    I spent some time last night scanning the Book of Acts as well as all
    the Epistles, using a Strong's Concordance, to see if any continuance 
    of this particular 'act' occurred. By this I mean, I searched for any 
    occurance where someone _other_ than the original Apostles [including
    Paul] laid hands on anyone to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and 
    was unable to find any such occurance.

    The only occurance that even remotely comes close to suggesting this is 
    found in Hebrews 6:1,2;

        "Therefore leaving the principles of the docrtine of Christ,
         let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation
         of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the
         doctrine of baptisms [pl?], and of laying on of hands, and of
         the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgement."

    From the above, it can be seen that laying hands on someone is a 
    basic doctrinal teaching. Disappointingly missing from the above
    is either _who_ should lay hands, or for _what_ specific purpose[s].
    We know from other occurances that laying hands had other purposes
    other than inparting the gift of the Holy Ghost so it's not necessarily
    a given, that the above refers to this.

    RE: Acts 6:1-5
    
    >From an LDS viewpoint, we would say that these men were ordained
    >to their office or calling. They were probably also ordained with the
    >Aaronic priesthood, judging from the later account of Philip's
    >ministry. Such ordinations are also accomplished by the laying on
    >of hands, which is different than bestowing the Gift of the Holy
    >Ghost by the laying on of hands.

    My understanding is that the Levitical priesthood was abolished?
    I can try to find the Biblical basis for this assertion if you'd
    like.
    
>>    What basis can you offer to show that a person may receive only a
>>    part or portion of the Holy Ghost given that Latter-day teachings
>>    indicate the Holy Ghost is a personage?
    
    >There is a difference between the Holy Ghost and the influence of the
    >Holy Ghost, much the same way as there is a difference between the sun
    >and the light and heat that emanate from the sun. The Holy Ghost is a
    >personage, but He is capable of having his influence felt by many
    >people at once. 
    
    The above is very understandable Rich, but I guess I was looking more
    for a scriptural perspective.

>>    Agreed, yet the Biblical scriptures are conspicuously silent on this
>>    aspect. After Peter's long discourse on the day of Pentecost, his hearers
>>    ask, 'Brethren, what shall we do?' [Acts 2:37], to which Peter responds,
>>    'Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
>>    for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the _gift_ of the Holy
>>    Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all
>>    that are afar off, even as many as our LORD shall call.' [vs. 38,39]
>>
>>    No mention in the above of the necessity of laying on of hands.
    
    >He does not mention *how* they will receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost,
    >just as he does not mention *how* they will be baptized. I have no
    >doubt that these converts were taken and shown how these things were to
    >be accomplished. 
    
     If I may differ here, Peter _does_ say *how* to be baptized and *why*;
     how - 'in the name of Jesus Christ' and why - 'for the remission of sins'.
     Isn't is safe to assume that there was only one way to be baptized,
     method-wise? Yet the receiving of the gift of the Holy Ghost was a new
     phenomenon and one would expect the methodology to be explained, if there
     was only one specific way.
     
     Taking the verse at face value, there are only two necessities to recieve
     the gift of the Holy Ghost; repent and be baptized.

    >If you will look at Hebrews 7, you will see references to the Levitical
    >(Aaronic) priesthood, as well as the Melchizedek priesthood. This
    >chapter does not spell out what the differences are in great measure,
    >and is not a complete "handbook" for these priesthoods, but does
    >indicate the differentiation between them. 
    
    >Actually, the knowledge of the priesthood(s) is one of the things that
    >Latter-day Saints believe was, in large measure, lost through apostasy.
    >The Doctrine and Covenants contains revelations that restore this
    >knowledge. If you'd like, I'd be glad to start a new topic to discuss
    >the priesthood(s). 
    
    Perhaps I should address my previous assertion here. A cursory reading
    of the following chapters [8-10] indicates that the Levitical priesthood
    under the old covenant, is inferior and is to be abolished by virtue of
    a 'new and better covenant, established upon better promises' and that
    'in that He saith, a 'new' covenant, he hath made the first 'old'.
    Now that which decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away.' In
    10:9 it is written, 'Then He said, Lo I come to do Thy will, O God.
    He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second.'

    There remains only one High Priest Who is Jesus Christ, made after the
    order of Melchisedec. We who are kings and priests and are to be found
    in Christ, can only be after this order.

    If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be happy to join you in a
    new topic.

    Regards,
    Charlie

    Re: Note 210.9 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON

    Hi Charlie,
    
>    If I may differ here, Peter _does_ say *how* to be baptized and *why*;
>    how - 'in the name of Jesus Christ' and why - 'for the remission of sins'.
>    Isn't is safe to assume that there was only one way to be baptized,
>    method-wise? Yet the receiving of the gift of the Holy Ghost was a new
>    phenomenon and one would expect the methodology to be explained, if there
>    was only one specific way.
    
    Yes, I suppose Peter does give some indication how and why, but he does
    not, for example, describe whether this is a baptism by water or merely
    of the Spirit, and he does not say whether baptism must be by immersion
    or by sprinkling or by some other method. These details of the
    methodology were not discussed, although they are quite important, in
    my view. Likewise, the details of how the Gift of the Holy Ghost is
    received were not discussed, and yet are quite important.
    
    One could take the position that since these details are not stipulated
    in the Holy Bible, then the details are not important. Or, one could
    take the position that the details are important, but are just not
    spelled out in the Holy Bible. Or, one could take the view that the
    Holy Bible does describe in some places how these things are done,
    while in other places there is just a passing reference to the matter,
    without describing the details. 
    
    I subscribe to the last view, which is that the Gift of the Holy Ghost
    was clearly described as being given by the laying on of hands in some
    places and the other references to the Gift of the Holy Ghost merely
    leave out the details of how this is done. If this is so, then I
    would think that it should be the same in Christ's church even today.
    
    Rich
    
    P.S. I will start a new topic to discuss the priesthood.