Re: [TruthTalk] Modalism & the RESTORATION

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 18:00:47 -0800

The LDS believes in henotheism & modalism?
 
Not at the same time.
 
FIRST This is an IMPORTANT thing to rightly understand even Joe said so....
Let us here observe, that three things are necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise faith in God unto life and salvation...Secondly, a correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes. (1835 D&C, "Lecture Third of Faith")
 
It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another... (April 1844, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, by Joseph Fielding Smith, p. 345)
 
The LDS god EVOLVED over time. This is easly to show from the extant manuscripts.
 
The Evolution of the LDS God TIMELINE:
 
1830 ONE GOD - Modalism
"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)
 
The Book of Mormon tells of a visitation of the Father and the Son to the "brother of Jared," but the account is not speaking of two separate personages. Only one personage appears, and this personage says: "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)
 
"And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son... And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation (Book of Mormon, Mosiah 15:1, 2, 5)
 
honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen. ("The Testimony of Three Witnesses," the last line)
 
...Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God... (Alma 11:44)
 
3 Nephi 11:27, 36; Alma 11:28-29 and Mormon 7:7
 
The Book of Mormon (1830) declared that Mary 'is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh,' which was changed in 1837 to 'mother of the Son of God.'
 
1835 TWO GODS binitarianism - Gradual separation into TWO personages one a personage of SPIRIT & one of taberancle (body)
 
http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-gd-dc-lfp55.html p 55 1835 Lectures on Faith ONLY TWO personages in the godhead
http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-gd-dc-lfp56.html 1835 Lectures on Faith p 56 Son is a personage of tabernacle (BODY)
http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-gd-dc-lfp53.html 1835 LonF p 53 Father a personage of SPIRIT Son tabernacle (Body)
http://www.irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-gd-dc-lfp57.html p 57 Holy Spirit is the SHARED MIND of Father/Son, NOT a Personage!
 
1839 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. (March 20, 1839, D&C 121:28)
 
1844 MANY GODS - Plurality of Gods
"I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years. I have always declared God to be a distinct personage--Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and or Spirit, and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods'. Teachings prophet J Smith 1844
 
"First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret.... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity.... God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did... You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves... No man can learn you more than what I have told you." (1844 Times and Seasons, vol. 5, pp. 613-14)
 
Also see:
Joseph Smith's 1832 account of his first vision spoke only of one personage and did not make the explicit separation of God and Christ found in the 1838 version.
 
The lack of LDS scriptures teaching any other view especially the current LDS view of the Godhead, during the time period 1830 - 1835 also testifies to the above.

David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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! Travel
Find great deals to the top 10 hottest destinations!

Reply via email to