Yes, the Restoration movement we have discussed in the past. It
involves a lot more than David Millard. In fact, somebody posted an
article by Alexander Campbell (one of the founders of the Church of Christ
movement) that criticized Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. I'm
sure DaveH remembers that discussion. It was all a very fascinating
historical discussion. As you know, Joseph Smith adopted Campbell's label
of Church of Christ originally.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 7:52
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Modalism &
the RESTORATION
What is also interesting is they have roots in the Restoration
movement.
via David Millard (contemporary of Joe who lived & Published 13 miles
away.) & Elias Smith see links below.
This
is interesting, Kevin. The LDS believes in henotheism (a type of
polytheism) and modalism at the same time? How can this be? DaveH,
please let us know your thoughts about this.
David
Miller
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Deegan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent:
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:18 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Modalism &
the RESTORATION
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> In short,
Modalism !!
Sort of Like the RESTORATIONISTS of the pre "Church of
Christ" - "CHRIST-ian church"? Sounds more like your HERITAGE! The
guys who thaought, the only name for the TRUE church is to have the name
of CHRIST thus the Christian
Church!
http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/jburnett/eshm/ESHM.HTM http://www.restorationquarterly.org/Volume_009/rq00903olbricht.htm http://www.acu.edu/sponsored/restoration_quarterly/archives/1960s/vol_9_no_3_contents/olbricht.html
Some
of these fellas Like David Millard, lived a scant 13 miles from Joe Smith
and thus the MODALISM in the BoM! "Book of Mormon theology is generally
modalistic. In the Book of Mormon, God and Jesus Christ are not distinct
beings." (New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, 1993, pages 82, 96-99,
103-104, 110) "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of
the world to redeem my people. Behold I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father
and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light... they shall become my
sons and my daughters." (Ether
3:14) http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/gods_1.htm
---
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In short, Modalism
!! > > Modalism > The error that there is only one person
in the Godhead who > manifests himself in three forms or manners:
Father, Son, and Holy > Spirit. > REPENT -- HURRY
!! > > jd > > -------------- Original message
-------------- > From: Judy Taylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > GOD IS ONE; JESUS SAID "I AND THE
FATHER ARE ONE" > More accurately, one person in three
manifestations > > > On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:27:25 -0500
"Lance Muir" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: > ONE GOD IN THREE
PERSONS > From: ShieldsFamily > > Unity in
Diversity. > Fatness in Skinniness. > Ugliness in
Beauty. > Dumbness in Intelligence. > Wisdom in
Nonsense. > Jibberish in Eloquence. > >
iz > > > > If your idea were so JD then Jesus would
have prayed "make them > "unity in diversity" just as we are
... > I see that nowhere in scripture. Jesus said if someone had seen
him > they had seen the Father > because he did only what he
first saw the Father do and he said only > what he first heard from
the > Father. This is the kind of unity he was praying about JD.
Unifying > around rebellion is what the > end times "harlot
church" is all about. > > On Mon, 20 Mar 2006 07:11:21 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > We shall be one as He and the
Father are one, someday, Judy. Right > now, unity inspite of diversity
is all we've got. > Because you and I are not of the same Christ does
not mean that unity > in diversity does not exist. jd > From:
Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Agreed! I to hate all the isms
and all the ologies. > In fact I don't see why we can not lay them
aside so that we may > recognize the faith > once delivered to
the saints and "walk in Truth" or reality. Jesus > was not referring
to any > "Unity in diversity" in John 17. He prayed they would be One
as He > and the Father are One > Is "Unity in diversity" how you
see the Godhead or "Trinity?" JD > > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006
05:33:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>writes: >
Sectarianism! Amen! Have you (of course you have) taken note of
those > who so identify others as sectarians while their group (sect)
is thus > reflective of a repristinated gospel. They seem themselves
as > 'recovering' the truth. > From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > It has occurred to me that legalism,
although unattractive as it is, > is not my real complaint. Henceforth
and forever more, I will be > opposed to sectarianism. The legal
content of the sectarian is often > different -- but the sectarian is
the same kind of cat, regardless > of his/her stripes. They are the
ones who oppose the unity concerns > expressed by Christ in John 17.
There can be unity in diversity. > In sectarian circles, the only
unity that exists is one borne of the > fear of reprisal.
jd > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > One other
thought on the creation thread. I wrote my remarks more > because of
Conor than for any other reason. My comments can stand > on their own,
I believe. I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth > nor do I
beleive the bible teaches such - for the reasons stated. > Could the
earth be only 6000 years old. I suppose so, but only the > sectarians
beleive such, IMHO. Is God the creator? Now that is > the real
question. I would think we all agree on the answer to that >
question. > > End of the matter for me. And, so, the opportunity
to delve into > the character of the opponent is side tracked.
Motivation be > damned -- in a biblical sense , of
course. > > jd > > > > From: "David
Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > John wrote: > >
> To your first question , "no." > > > > If I get time,
I will try and present some of it for you. > > > > John
wrote: > > > To your second question, either you > >
> did not read my post or you have > > > decided to insult my
presentation? > > > > I read your post very carefully. I
am not trying to insult you at > all. > > Most of your
argument revolves around why we should consider using > a > >
figurative meaning. This is the approach I hear from most Bible >
scholars, > > but the pressure for doing this seems to come from
science not good > > > theology, in my opinion. >
> > > The strongest statement you make is where you point out
that Gen. > 2:4 uses > > the word day figuratively. This is
easily understood to be > figurative, but > > ; the uses of
the word day prior to this are numbered. The text > says,
First > > Day, Second Day, Third Day, etc. It is hard to insist
that numbered > days > > are figurative. It is the numbering
of the day as well as its > coupling with > > the evening and
morning statements that makes it difficult to > perceive it as >
> being anything other than a specific time period measured by >
evening and > > morning. You would have to argue that evening and
morning were > greatly > > extended, or that they too are
figurative, to maintain the > figurative > > chronology that
you hold onto. There is the added problem of having > plants >
> created long before the sun, moon, and stars? Not likely from a >
biologist's > > perspective. So, in all, your perspective is not
the most > parsimonious > > explanation. I remain skeptical
of the figurative interpretation. > > > > What bothers me
about the approach many theologians take to Genesis > 1 is >
> that rather than trying to show from the text itself why the >
meaning must be > > figurative, they just find ways to try and show
why it could be > read this > > way. I have no trouble
understanding that it might be read this > way. I > > have
trouble with the idea that it should be read this way. > > >
> What is the motivation for making it figurative? I believe the >
motivation > > is cultural. It seems to me that if it were not for
science and the > claims > > of science, theologians would
not be taking a figurative approach > to Genesis > > 1. Do
you see it different? Is there any way to argue directly from >
the > > text (any thing in the Bible anywhere) for a very long
process of > creation? > > > > David Miller >
> > > ==================== > > John, I have a couple
questions for you. > > > > 1. Have you ever read John
Whitcomb's theological treatment > concerning the > > length
of the day in Genesis 1? I have read his perspective and >
even > > discussed this perso nally with him before, but he comes
from a > theology > > background and I come from a science
background, so I don't know > how well he > > is accepted as
a "t heologian." His arguments for why the day is > not > >
figurative made a lot of sense to me. > > > > 2. Is there
any THEOLOGICAL or TEXTUAL reason for you treating the > day >
> figuratively? In other words, I don't have a problem with
someone > saying > > that perhaps we should take the meaning
figuratively, but I wonder > if there > > is any reason other
than reconciliing with the assertions of > science that a > >
theologian or Bible scholar would interpret the word day in Genesis >
1 as > > figurative. If we only had the Bible and the Holy Spirit
guiding > us, what > > would be the reasons to view the day
figuratively in Genesis 1? > > > > David Miller >
> > > ---------- > > "Let your speech be always with
grace, seasoned with salt, that you > may know how > > you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) >
http://www.InnGlory.org > > & lt; BR>> If you do not want
to receive posts from this list, send > an email to > >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you >
have a friend > > who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail
to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] and > > he will be
subscribed. > >
__________________________________________________ Do
You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection
around http://mail.yahoo.com ---------- "Let your speech be always
with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to
answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If
you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a
friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.
---------- "Let your speech be always with grace,
seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man."
(Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to
receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell
him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be
subscribed.
Yahoo! Mail Bring photos to life! New
PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze.
|