I think the answer is clear.
Excellent analysis. It’s hard to get in the mind of Joseph - the author has done well.
After wading through the quicksand of “sequential modalism, expansionistic modalism, and Sabellian Sequentialism or Swedenborgian Expansionism”, we're left with “Yet even with changes so vast, the aroma of Joseph Smith’s early modalism continued to flavor to the end his thinking and his description of the relationship between the Father and the Son.”.
In other words, Smith's early statements of belief could be seen in his later writing.
To which I can say, AND. And what?
If I want to Evangelize, which is the persuasion of the director of IRR, I should think I'd be less concerned with the flavor and aroma of Smith's writing and teachings and more concerned with the meat of whether such teachings are Scriptural.
Awesome work here. You are the best cut-and-paster on FR. You are a credit to all unhappy high brows.
I don’t understand how this site has become a place to bash Mormons, I say that because no matter how you look at this “theologic” article, it is just put out there as a negative comment on the religion of millions of people, most of which are “conservatives” which means they are on the same side as people on this site. It sickens me. As for what Joseph Smith meant? That seems plain to anyone who follows his teachings. Why does he talk about Christ and God as one person one time and as separate beings another? Well, Mormons believe that God and Jesus are separate beings, however they are one in purpose. Jesus always refers to himself as God because he follows God’s will exactly, his word is the same as God’s, his purpose is the same as God’s in that way you can say they are one, which he does. Seems kind of simple when you don’t use a bunch of fancy pseudo scientific jargon to spew a bunch of negative information about a religion which believes in and attempts to follow Christ’s teachings. Hard to believe that other “Christians” are so negative.
Will read later,
but the first lint seats the mood of the author by starting with the conclusion of “heretical teaching”.
What I’d like to see is a statistical analysis of the degrees of divergence from actual Bible names shown by Book of Mormon names compared to the degree of divergence from common baby names shown by black American culture’s favorite baby names. You know, the latter want something that sounds unique and maybe African and the author of the former wanted something that sounded foreign and Biblical.
Do you really believe what this person wrote?
“God Himself could not create Himself”
+++++
Is this author saying that God created Himself?
Do you believe that God created Himself?
“God Himself could not create Himself”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
THIS IS A MADE UP LINE THAT YOUR AUTHOR SAID JOSEPH SMITH SHOULD HAVE SAID.
ONE OF THE MANY STRAWMAN SAYINGS USED TO KEEP US FROM SEEING WHAT IS REALLY TAUGHT.
Your author’s writing stile is better suited to selling a used lemon of a car the in relaying the truth.
A very scholarly approach.
Not personal, but theological.
Bookmarked!
They also have a good video on the Book of Abraham.
http://www.irr.org/mit/lboa-video.html
Hope everyone's holidays were bright. Happy New Year.
Cheers all.
Swedenborg often quotes Colossians 2:9 “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;” when he writes of the Trinity of person. Any interpretation of that quote shows that Jesus Christ is God... monotheistic.
My tang got toungled just reading the TITLE of this thread!
Neither. It is actually Antedeluvian Antidisestablishmentterrianism preached by the Greco-Armenian mystic Homerus Simpsonus in the 14th Century AC/DC.
This is most interesting. I’ve been reading how smith’s theology evolved and this article is a good case in point, linking the doctrine of mormonism at that time with what was happening to it. What I also found in my meanderings is that smith didn’t teach current mormon doctrine associating Jehovah to the pre-incarnate Jesus, but actually taught Jehovah was the Father.