Re: [TruthTalk] Modalism & the RESTORATION

[David Miller]

I appreciate this info, Kevin.    I seem to remember reading something from Joe Smith himself, however, that indicated he adopted this teaching from Campbell.  Do you know if there is any mention of Joe Smith reading this information from Elias Smith?   David Miller   ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:30 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Modalism & the RESTORATION No David, read the links that show He adopted the "Christian Church" Movement as far as the name of the church must have the name Christ as in CHRIST-ian Church. Elias Smith taught that years before Alexander Campbell or Joe! How old were they in 1803, when he founded the "Church of Christ" in Portsmouth? Joe never was very original and a majority of the followers of the CHRIST-ian Church movement became followers of Campbellism.     THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH founded 1803 proclaims:  " The Lord Jesus Christ as the head of the church.   Christian our only name." A number of them met at Sandborton, in the spring of 1802, and organized what they called "The Christian Conference." The membership was almost wholly of Baptist clergymen. Smith had written out a series of articles setting forth his belief, which were read at the meeting. In September of the same year "The Christian Conference" met, at which time the articles were highly approved, and arrangements made for their publication. He says, "This was a bold and important step at this time, for by these [17] articles we condemned all others. The next step was to disown these, and hear Christ in all things." Elder Smith had, previous to this time, deliberately concluded to disown all names but the name Christian, and had taught that the name Christian was the only one for Christ's followers to wear. In the year 1802 he began his work in Portsmouth, N. H., where in 1803 he organized a "Church of Christ," owning Him as their only Master, Lord and Lawgiver, and agreeing to consider themselves Christian without the addition of any unscriptural name http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/jburnett/eshm/ESHM.HTM David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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 ----- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 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.   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! Mail Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail makes sharing a breeze. Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.