LittleNipper wrote:Does your church or temple have a cross, point, or angel on your place of worship's steeple (if there is a steeple)? And why do you think this is the case?
gdemetz wrote:Yea, that's a false evangelical baptism Nipper. You and Albion keep spouting out all that evangelical stuff instead of quoting the Bible as you should. Christ told Nicodemus that except a MAN be born of the water and Spirit, he could not enter the kingdom of heaven. A MAN is already born Nipper, but he needs to be born of the water (baptism) and born of the spirit (the laying on of hands for the gift of the holy Ghost), just like it was done in the Bible, Nipper! One problem that I have with all those evangelical priestcrafters is that they don't even read non Mormon Christian Biblical encyclopedias, etc. If they would read them, then they would see that they are teaching just what I have stated!
Also, the angel blowing the trumpet (Moroni) lifted up on the temples is a hopeful wake up call, or a sign, to the nations to come to Christ's church!
"And he will lift up an ensign to the nations, and he will assemble the outcasts of Israel {a special meaning to me!), and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth."
"
Mike Reed wrote:sweetheart_ty wrote:Hi, Mike.
The Angel Moroni is not a symbol of His death, but a symbol of the restoration of the gospel.
I didn't say it was. My comments are in regards to whether symbols are acceptable, even if God says nothing about whether they should be used to "advertise." I am glad to see that you concede that such symbols may still acceptable for "advertising." So why then you make the exception for the cross. Simply pointing out that it is a symbol of death is not enough. Seem's your argument's ad hoc, having no real historical or revelatory basis.The Christus depicts the nail marks in Christ's hands and feet, marks whose explicit purpose as explained by Christ is to advertise the sacrifice He made and to bear witness that He is God. See 3 Nephi 11:14-17. Seeing the prints on the resurrected Savior puts the sacrifice in context.
And? Why are you explaining the obvious?But remember, I'm not minimizing the cross.
You are excluding it for use, when it comes to advertising.The cross is a visual depiction. Let's replace that visual with something comparable of an auditory nature, such as
How about the word cross? The term is quite common in LDS scripture and hymns. Now what?the sound of a man being tortured on a cross, gasping for breath and crying out. Would it be appropriate for a Church to record that sound and play it each time someone enters through the doors? Or to make it the official sound of the Church and play it constantly in the background during service?
Can cathartic value, as well as an appreciation of the atonement, come from such? Sure.Carthage proves that the Prophet's testimony was sealed with his blood. That fact is sacred even though the physical act of him being murdered was not sacred.
Was the physical act of murdering Jesus sacred?And Carthage itself did not kill him, it merely bears witness.
The same can be said for the cross. The cross didn't kill him, his crucifiers. So what is your point? Both serve as reminders of death, even though both figures' work (according to LDS doctrine) continues beyond the grave.
Drifting wrote:Can you provide a quote from the Bible where the Gift of the Holy Ghost was administered by a laying on of hands?
subgenius wrote:Drifting wrote:Can you provide a quote from the Bible where the Gift of the Holy Ghost was administered by a laying on of hands?
Acts 8:17
"Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost"
Acts 9:17
and laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you came, has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit
Acts 19:6
"And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied."
(bold emphasis above mine)
i may be jumping to conclusions...but i have surely landed on both feet upon the correct conclusion.
Drifting wrote:And yet I'm not seeing the word 'Gift' which, as you know, is the difference between what non Mormons are allowed to have without any hand laying on, and what the special Mormons get.
subgenius wrote:Drifting wrote:And yet I'm not seeing the word 'Gift' which, as you know, is the difference between what non Mormons are allowed to have without any hand laying on, and what the special Mormons get.
like i said...maybe i am jumping to conclusions...probably not
nevertheless, if you consider the verse above to be as one that is simply noting a "coincidence" then so be it...but it is not only me that you are trying to fool with that faulty reasoning.
hang your hat on the word "gift"...but i am not sure we don't read it in the Hebrew, are you sure?
τότε ἐπετίθεσαν τὰς χεῖρας ἐπ' αὐτούς, καὶ ἐλάμβανον πνεῦμα ἅγιον
but hey let us look at context
Acts 8:16 reads
"because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus"
then 17
"Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost."
but wait
earlier in Acts 2:38 we read
"Then Peter said unto them, 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. (emphasis mine) <---notice word "gift"
clearly after baptism one just flat out receives the gift of the HG...but wait it is clearly stated that they were baptized...but no HG yet....hmmmm...what to do, what to do......i know...lay hands and receive the gift...yep that is what happened
you don't have to be a special Mormon by the way....just special
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised 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.