The Stone Cut From The Mountain...

[Uncle Dale]

No, I don't think the Church is the "stone cut from the mountain".

Since the Church is the "people" (not a physical object), let's look at how the "Church" has done in comparison to the world population:

Church Members/ World Population/ Percentage

1900 - 283k / 1.65 Billion (.0172%)

1950 - 1,1 Million / 2.25 Billion (.049%)

2000 - 11 Million / 6.1 Billion (.18%)

2005- 12.6 Million / 6.45 Billion (.19%)

I'm absolutely impressed that the Church was able to go from .0172% of the worlds population to .18% in 100 years. But I don't know if I would look at that and call it "filling the whole Earth", especially since I used the Church's self reported numbers, and not a more realistic approximation of active members.

Also, as pointed out by luigi, there are several other religions with growth rates equal to or better than the LDS Church. JW's, Scientology, Pentacostals, and Seventh-day Adventists are also impressive stones. But I'm sure Daniel refers to the LDS Church, because the LDS Church is true.

hmmmmmm..... this "filling the world" may take longer than Orson, Willard and Brigham thought

UD

[Paul Ray]

hmmmmmm..... this "filling the world" may take longer than Orson, Willard and Brigham thought

UD

... unless you go with the idea that the stone, or rock, is revelation from God.

I think it's pretty much everywhere now... even though some don't notice it.

[Uncle Dale]

... unless you go with the idea that the stone, or rock, is revelation from God.

I think it's pretty much everywhere now... even though some don't notice it.

If I want to fill a bucket of rocks with "red" I can go find a bunch of red rocks --

red, through and through... and fill up that darned bucket.

Or, I can just slosh in a few teaspoons of red paint and say the job is done.

If we were to ask Warren Jeffs for his opinion, I'm sure he would say that the true

Latter Day Saints must eventually become the only inhabitants of the celestialized

earth. All others must be eliminated -- by conversion, by ejection, or by extermination.

Uncle "I'm dejected cuz I'm ejected" Dale

[Paul Ray]

If I want to fill a bucket of rocks with "red" I can go find a bunch of red rocks --

red, through and through... and fill up that darned bucket.

Or, I can just slosh in a few teaspoons of red paint and say the job is done.

If we were to ask Warren Jeffs for his opinion, I'm sure he would say that the true

Latter Day Saints must eventually become the only inhabitants of the celestialized

earth. All others must be eliminated -- by conversion, by ejection, or by extermination.

Uncle "I'm dejected cuz I'm ejected" Dale

... if you are basically saying that you are bewildered because some LDS say this, and some other LDS say that, and what they say doesn't at least seem to agree...

I recommend that you go to the source of where our true doctrine comes from.

I know what I know by learning from God and from God's true prophets.

... and btw, who is Warren Jeffs?

I don't believe I have heard of that person.

[Uncle Dale]

I recommend that you go to the source of where our true doctrine comes from.

Last time I mentioned my 1978 meeting with President Kimball, somebody told me,

"Give that old story a rest, Dale!" Luckily I do have a close personal friend whose

father grew up with/close to the Monson family --- so maybe I can try again one day.

The people of Iran, and/or Islam, will continue to live on the Earth as long as they obey

righteous laws, and any evil-doers will go "live" somewhere else.

If Christ is ruling the world from Jackson County, Missouri -- and all the world is aware of

that fact, then what use is there for an Iranian theocracy that executes its children if they

attempt to convert and follow Jesus?

Uncle "or is that Afganistan, where they have that particular law?" Dale

[Paul Ray]

Last time I mentioned my 1978 meeting with President Kimball, somebody told me,

"Give that old story a rest, Dale!" Luckily I do have a close personal friend whose

father grew up with/close to the Monson family --- so maybe I can try again one day.

... to talk to who?

... a close personal friend whose father grew up with/close to the Monson family?

If so, what makes you think that person is a true prophet of God?

People who grow up with/close to good people don't always turn out to be good people, themselves.

Why don't you just try asking God... when you get a chance?

If Christ is ruling the world from Jackson County, Missouri -- and all the world is aware of

that fact, then what use is there for an Iranian theocracy that executes its children if they

attempt to convert and follow Jesus?

No use at all, at least as far as I can see now.

Those who want to execute others for their beliefs would be among those getting shipped out.

... if I am among those who have a say in the matter.

Uncle "or is that Afganistan, where they have that particular law?" Dale

I'm kinda fuzzy on that one, myself.

[Lehi]

Sometimes I think reading the Bible can be like looking at a painting by Jackson Pollock.

In some places it's very beautiful.

In some places it's very ugly.

And everyone sees something different, whether it's actually there or not.

Lehi

[3DOP]

Well if it's not the LDS church then who or what is it?

The scripture tells us it will "never be destroyed" and "shall not be left to other people." So we know it wasn't the early church.

Hi auteur 55,

I wouldn't be interested in belonging to a Church that is not the kingdom of which Daniel spoke. However, I must take issue with what seems like an assumption in regard to the alleged apostasy of the early church. You say that since it will "'never be destroyed' and 'shall not be left to other people'" that it cannot possibly be the early church that is the stone. All Scripture references I use to attempt to explain my disagreement with this statement are taken from the LDS approved King James Version.

The first of the four kingdoms which are consecutively overthrown is usually understood to be Babylon, with Nebuchadnezzar as monarch whose dream it was that Daniel interprets.

Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom...

---2:37

This seems to be speaking of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon, since that is the person to whom Daniel is speaking. He continues to refer to Nebuchadnezzar as he introduces the second and third kingdoms:

And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

---2:39

Daniel tells us if we didn't already figure it out what inferior kingdom replaces Babylon in the prophecy of the handwriting on the wall when he spoke to King Belshazzar of the end of the Babylonian era:

This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it. TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances and found wanting. PERES; Thy kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.

---5:26-28

Perhaps we could agree that the first two kingdoms are the political kingdoms of Babylon and Medo-Persia. The third kingdom, made of brass, is also referenced elsewhere in Daniel:

Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and strengthen him. And now I will shew thee the truth. Behold there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled; for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.

---11:1-4

This vivid description of Alexander the Great and what follows politically in the realms over which he had ruled is so accurate that skeptics can only with great difficulty allow that this book was actually written by the same Daniel who served under Nebuchadnezzar. This is the reason why many liberal scholars place the dating of this book no earlier than 180 AD. I have no wish to debate the dating of the Book of Daniel. My point is that this would seem to confirm that the third kingdom must be considered to be Greece under Alexander the Great.

The fourth kingdom is the one which followed that of Alexander. Daniel had some troubling dreams of his own which helps us understand that it probably refers to the Roman Empire.

Then I would know the truth of the fourth beast...I beheld, and the same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; Until the Ancient of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.

---7:19, 21, 22

First, it would seem truncated if any list of kingdoms after Babylon should end with Greece and exclude Rome. Second, this kingdom would need to have been a persecutor of the children of the kingdom. Pagan Rome certainly attempted to wipe out early Christianity by force. Third, Rome failed in this attempt and much as modern proponents of separation of church and state might deplore the act, under Emperor Constantine the Roman State adopted Christianity as the true religion after centuries of persecuting it. The saints now possessed this fourth kingdom.

It should be noted that Catholics do not historically view Constantine's conversion to Christianity and the subsequent merging of religion and state in a negative light. Rather, it is seen as a great triumph for the faith. Nor do subsequent events through the centuries discourage us from believing that the end of pagan Rome, was already "written on the wall" when "in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed" (2:44). The Roman Empire is an easy fit to be the fourth kingdom in whose days the God of heaven set up that kingdom which shall never be destroyed. The Catholic Church is a kingdom that can easily fulfill the prophecy of the stone that smote the image, having become a great mountain, filling the whole earth.

This vision undoubtedly fired the imaginations of great saints like Augustine of Canterbury, Boniface, Hilary, and others who successfuly brought the true faith to the northern peoples. St Francis Xavier, landing alone on a strange, alien shore won countless spiritual children scattered throughout the vast realms of Asia who persist in the Catholic faith to this day. After the fall of Montezuma (which we also recognize to be a great thing), Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to a native Mexican who brought a message from her to the newly installed bishop with a miraculous image of her on his tilma (shirt garment) which resulted in the quick conversion of the native peoples of Central and South America who had lived in such darkness. Great Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries like St. Isaac Jogues continued to penetrate into what is now the Middle and Southwest United States. The very names, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Santa Fe, St. Louis, and literally thousands of other place names testify to the successful establishment of the Catholic faith in North America, even as the Pilgrims were landing in the Mayflower. Today, formerly the subject of the missions, African, Phillipino, and Vietnamese priests are so numerous in their own countries that they often labor in lands that had once sent them missionaries.

Non-Catholics have had little choice we understand but to oppose our admittedly biased view of history with a much darker version of their own, since they would deny that the Catholic Church is that kingdom which has filled the world as prophesied by Daniel. Must this dark version be presumed to be without bias of its own? This brings me back to your original offhand comment, auteur 55, denying that this prophecy can refer to the establishment of the early Christian Church by the Apostles because, "'The scripture tells us it will 'never be destroyed' and 'shall not be left to other people.'" Where is it proven to anyone except those who by faith accept an apostasy, that the Apostolic Church is destroyed, or left to other people?

The Catholic Church is unarguably ancient and claims episcopal continuity to the Apostles. From humble beginnings, through nearly two thousand years of tumult and triumph, modern times shows us that world leaders and most people concern themsleves with what the oldest continuous institution in the world might say about other churches, how it prays for the conversion of Jews in the Traditional liturgy, and is one of the firmest bulwarks opposing a universal acceptance of a worldwide abortion holocaust. For being dead, we certainly seem newsworthy! If Mormons believe the Catholic Church is so clearly "destroyed" we are bound to wonder when this happened, and further, what are we to think of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? What signs of life could Catholics see there that would make us recognize better our own demise?

3DOP

[Zakuska]

First, it would seem truncated if any list of kingdoms after Babylon should end with Greece and exclude Rome. Second, this kingdom would need to have been a persecutor of the children of the kingdom. Pagan Rome certainly attempted to wipe out early Christianity by force. Third, Rome failed in this attempt and much as modern proponents of separation of church and state might deplore the act, under Emperor Constantine the Roman State adopted Christianity as the true religion after centuries of persecuting it. The saints now possessed this fourth kingdom.

Not so fast, Rome is also perfectly depicted by the waist and thighs of Daniels Image... because it split in half between east and west.

I'd also like some more documentation on which "Kingdom" it is that the saints would posess. Because Rome split up into the "10 toes" of mirey clay mixed with Iron. Before any Kingdom for the Saints was set up that they would posses.

It should be noted that Catholics do not historically view Constantine's conversion to Christianity and the subsequent merging of religion and state in a negative light. Rather, it is seen as a great triumph for the faith. Nor do subsequent events through the centuries discourage us from believing that the end of pagan Rome, was already "written on the wall" when "in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed" (2:44). The Roman Empire is an easy fit to be the fourth kingdom in whose days the God of heaven set up that kingdom which shall never be destroyed. The Catholic Church is a kingdom that can easily fulfill the prophecy of the stone that smote the image, having become a great mountain, filling the whole earth. This vision undoubtedly fired the imaginations of great saints like Augustine of Canterbury, Boniface, Hilary, and others who successfuly brought the true faith to the northern peoples. St Francis Xavier, landing alone on a strange, alien shore won countless spiritual children scattered throughout the vast realms of Asia who persist in the Catholic faith to this day. After the fall of Montezuma (which we also recognize to be a great thing), Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared to a native Mexican who brought a message from her to the newly installed bishop with a miraculous image of her on his tilma (shirt garment) which resulted in the quick conversion of the native peoples of Central and South America who had lived in such darkness. Great Jesuit and Franciscan missionaries like St. Isaac Jogues continued to penetrate into what is now the Middle and Southwest United States. The very names, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Sacramento, Santa Fe, St. Louis, and literally thousands of other place names testify to the successful establishment of the Catholic faith in North America, even as the Pilgrims were landing in the Mayflower. Today, formerly the subject of the missions, African, Phillipino, and Vietnamese priests are so numerous in their own countries that they often labor in lands that had once sent them missionaries.

Wasn't Montezuma beheaded shortly after his conversion and baptism?

Got to run for now...

[William Schryver]

No, I don't think the Church is the "stone cut from the mountain".

Since the Church is the "people" (not a physical object), let's look at how the "Church" has done in comparison to the world population:

Church Members/ World Population/ Percentage

1900 - 283k / 1.65 Billion (.0172%)

1950 - 1,1 Million / 2.25 Billion (.049%)

2000 - 11 Million / 6.1 Billion (.18%)

2005- 12.6 Million / 6.45 Billion (.19%)

I'm absolutely impressed that the Church was able to go from .0172% of the worlds population to .18% in 100 years. But I don't know if I would look at that and call it "filling the whole Earth", especially since I used the Church's self reported numbers, and not a more realistic approximation of active members.

Also, as pointed out by luigi, there are several other religions with growth rates equal to or better than the LDS Church. JW's, Scientology, Pentacostals, and Seventh-day Adventists are also impressive stones. But I'm sure Daniel refers to the LDS Church, because the LDS Church is true.

No doubt. No doubt.

By the way, how is that Sacrament Meeting talk coming along? I can't wait to get my copy -- hot off the press as it were.

I trust you are employing a good amount of fasting and prayer as part of your preparation?

[auteur55]

Greetings 3DOP,

The reason I have a hard time believing that the early church was the kingdom Daniel saw is not so much because I believe in an apostasy but because of Matthew 21:43 where Christ says "the kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." So the kingdom Christ organized was left and given to another people.

[Deborah]

I think what is being missed, is that the stone is not done rolling. I also think numbers alone can be deceptive in the interpretation of "filling the earth." I think the phrase is more appropriate to the spirit filling the earth than mere numbers and refers not specifically to the number of LDS but the influence of the restoration of the Priesthood and the presence of the Priesthood in many nations in moving the spirit upon the earth. I believe that the restoration of the Priesthood was the beginning of that stone rolling in these latter days and the influence of the Priesthood has brought light to the world that had been long missing and has in turn been responsible for the extraordinary advances the world has made in that short time period when compared with all the rest of the history of the world.

In a talk from Elder Haight, Ensign May 1990:

During a brief period of weeks, we have witnessed some phenomenal changes in the world, particularly in the Eastern bloc countries, changes which God-fearing men attribute to the hand of the Almighty in bringing about His glorious purposes to fill the earth with the knowledge of the Lord. Walls have come down, gates have opened, and millions of voices have chorused the song of freedom! We rejoice in the dawning of a brighter day....

The peoples in eastern Europe have slowly but effectively been exposed to ideals of truth and basic rights through messages by satellite; radio; printed materials; even programs and recordings by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir; word of mouth, heart-to-heart contacts; and the light of Christ encouraging seeds of truth to seep into their consciousnessâ??a precept here and a precept thereâ??and when the opportunity arrived, they confidently seized upon it.

There are still many parts of the world that have yet to receive that light but the Lord's work is not yet done and it's a little early to start deciding whether the prophecy has yet been completely fulfilled.

[3DOP]

Greetings 3DOP,

The reason I have a hard time believing that the early church was the kingdom Daniel saw is not so much because I believe in an apostasy but because of Matthew 21:43 where Christ says "the kingdom of God will be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." So the kingdom Christ organized was left and given to another people.

Hi auteur55,

I appreciate the response. I try never to propose a biblical interpretation as though there are no other ways of understanding the Scripture. Perhaps it was noticed in my first post that I consciously try to use words and expressions that shows I have doubts that a controversial biblical interpretation can be convincing. I probably need to be more liberal in my use of "possibly", "plausibly", "perhaps", and "seems like". I can almost always see the logic behind someone else's interpretation as I can with yours. The Scripture alone, in my opinion, can never settle biblical controversies. I will try to demonstrate my opinion that Scripture by itself, apart from an authoritative interpreter, does not settle, but rather creates controversies. If I can show that there are multiple plausible explanations of a passage from Scripture alone, then it can be asked how we may know which plausible interpretation is correct. I therefore repeat that I am not attempting to prove that the interpretation I offer is convincing, only possibly correct.

First, I must admit the plausibility of your own interpretation of Mt. 21:43 in relation to the stone of Daniel, which would perceive our Lord as warning the early church that they could and did lose the kingdom. I would add to your apparent interpretation, verse 44, which even mentions what could possibly be understood to be the stone of Nebuchadnezzar's dream:

And whosoever shall fall on that stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

You are of course welcome to add to what I have acknowledged about your interpretation, but I doubt I could be moved to understand it to be convincing, only plausible. That is because I know of a different way of looking at the passage which also rises at least to a modest threshold that we might call, plausibility.

An interpretation of the Catholic Church, about which She is a little gunshy in an era when theological interpretations can be understood by outsiders to be proof that we would support Hitler's holocaust, says that this passage refers to the Jewish Synagogue, whose leaders were looking for a way to undermine the influence of Jesus Christ. We have seen a portion of the conclusion of a lengthy speech by Christ in the Temple which began with the chief priests and the elders inquiring about Jesus' authority (v.23). As you surely know, He answered them by asking them their opinion about John the Baptist's authority. Because of their fear of the people, they would not give Jesus a straight answer about that, and Jesus was uncompelled to answer their question in return (vv.24-27). But He takes them where they need to go in a more roundabout way.

Immediately he speaks two parables to them. The first is the parable of the two sons (vv.28-32). One said he would work for his father, the other didn't. The one who said he would work, didn't. The one who said he wouldn't work, did. It was explained that this illustrates why the publicans and harlots would enter the kingdom of God before the chief priests and elders to whom Jesus was still speaking about The Baptist for we read:

For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and harlots believed him...

---verse 32a

Note how that we have just understood in v.25 that it was the same Jewish leaders who did not believe in John the Baptist, while the lower classes believed. It could be understood that this first parable is directed at the Jewish leaders.

The second parable which you aparently take to be directed at the early church continues in much the same manner. He explains about an absentee owner of a vineyard who had invested much effort in hedging, digging a winepress, building a tower, and selecting stewards before going away (v. 33). However, when harvest time came round, it seems that the owner was continually disappointed with the way the stewards treated the servants that he had sent to them (vv. 34-36). Finally, the owner sent his own son (v. 37), and the stewards conspired ever more cunningly to kill the owner's son. Since he was the heir of the property, they imagined that by getting rid of him, they would no longer be mere stewards, but could seize the inheritance:

But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.

---vv. 38, 39

A Catholic interpretation suggests that this parable illustrates how after centuries of being stewards of God's kingdom, the Jewish leaders, though sitting in Moses' chair, began to forget that the kingdom belonged to God. God first sent them prophets to correct them who were persecuted by the stewards. Jesus refers to this in chapter 23 where He is recorded accusing them thus:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous. And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

---Mt. 23:29-32

After rejecting God's servants who came to them, the self-seeking Jewish stewards were rejected themselves when they caught the son of the owner of the vineyard (kingdom) and killed him. It would seem that many of the Lord's auditors understood the just results of the parable, without knowing to whom it applied. But that is understandable because most of the people could not connect anything with a scheme to kill someone's son. But the chief priests knew that it was all directed at them (see. v. 45), probably because they had already been working out some arrangements for getting rid of Him who claimed to be the very Son of the God who they claimed to be serving. Jesus asked what the lord of the vineyard would do to those stewards and they knowingly answered that they would be destroyed and replaced by other husbandmen (v. 41). In verse 42 we arrive at the ironic fact that the builders of the kingdom were the same ones who would ultimately reject the cornerstone. Allow me now to quote the final verses of the chapter and draw the conclusion of a Catholic interpretation:

Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. And when the chief priests had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them. But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

vv. 43-46

I would suggest the possibility that these parables as well as the key verse in the chapter, v. 43, are a continuous monologue of our Lord's in the Temple directly addressed to the chief priests and elders who according to our Lord in Mt. 23:2, "sit in Moses' seat" (they still held authority in God's kingdom). I am suggesting that v. 43 can without much difficulty be understood to be referencing the fact that it is the kingdom over which the Jewish leaders had reigned so long that would be "taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." This would mean that instead of the Messiah bringing a kingdom that would elevate the Jewish leaders, they would be rejected, as were the stewards in the parable. You also might have noticed that I bolded the part which for me makes it seem possible that this passage is in reference to the chief priests and Pharisees. The Scriptures record that they perceived it was directed to them. It is also a Catholic perception, and one that seems to me to be at least possible.

I could ask about some difficulties that I might see with your interpretation auteur 55, but I do not think they would be fatal for your interpretation. On the other hand, I cannot figure out how you might very easily dismiss what I have suggested above for a plausible interpretation. Since your interpretation of the stone of Nebuchadnezzar is formed by your particular view of Mt. 21:43, perhaps it would be helpful for you to explain how you know that the Catholic interpretation of the same verse I have offered is undoubtedly faulty.

Regards,

3DOP

[cinepro]

There are still many parts of the world that have yet to receive that light but the Lord's work is not yet done and it's a little early to start deciding whether the prophecy has yet been completely fulfilled.

For "unfulfilled" prophecies, it always is.

[Tchild2]

"The stone Cut from the Mountain"?

What exactly, I wonder, is supposed to "fill the earth"? What teachings does Mormonism offer the world that are different from other teachings? What about lifestyle, attitudes, etc? There doesn't seem to be anything special about LDSism - as UD puts it, beyond a few mostly irrelevant "peculiarities" that Mormons have adopted to try and stand out. Is the practice of abstaining from a few drinks and herbs while mostly ignoring other health advice going to "fill the world"?. Are the modest fashions of Mormons that are middle of the road conservative being more conservative than secular America, but more liberal than other fundamentalist sects (Quakers, Amish, FLDS, etc) going to fill the fashion void we now see? Teachings? We don't have much about God that differs from other Christian faiths except that God has a body. Heaven? Fairly vague there except that there are "degrees" and a planet Kolob that is "like unto a large Urim and Thummin" (whatever that is anyway).

It seems to me that basically, Mormonism is a set of ordinances that make the church "true" due to having the correct priesthood. Are ordinances going to fill the world? Seems a bit light on material if you ask me.

[Cold Steel]

Well, for one thing, I watched a recent Republican candidates' debate on TV in which

Mitt Romney said that his religion believes in the separation of church and state.

How can you have a world-wide kingdom prepared for the millennium, if its leaders are

not the leaders of a world-wide religion that has rolled throughout the earth crushing under

it all other rival human institutions?

The doctrine spoken of at the time of JS's own bid for the US Presidency was emphatically

one of joining church and state, with the ultimate triumph of the Mormons over all other

rival groups.

Did I miss something between 1844 and 2007?

UD

According to prophecy, the missionaries of the church will at some point be withdrawn. Sometime after that, a wide ranging series of natural disasters will begin sweeping the world. These disasters will quickly overtake the government's resources and ability to maintain order. At that point civil war will begin to break out in cities and states here, and in cities and nations worldwide. The great secret combination will be brought down and the saints shall be the only people who will not be at war with one another. Zion's camps will exist in locations throughout the United States and Elder Bruce McConkie warned that nuclear weapons would be employed by the enemies of this nation, and that only the power of the priesthood would be able to ensure the safety of the Latter-day Saints. At this time, many non-members of the church will join these camps just for safety.

In short, it won't be because the saints seize power in the U.S. and overthrow it. Rather, it will become the de facto, or default government. Thus when Jesus returns, the U.S. flag will still be flying.

Regarding Daniel's dream, yes, the church has always seen itself as the kingdom which shall never be destroyed. The "head of gold" represented Nebuchadnezzar's own government. This would be followed by a kingdom symbolized by "the arms of silver," which was the Medo-Persian Empire (538-331 B.C.). After that, the Greco-Macedonian Empire (Alexander the Great) (331-160 B.C.) was represented by the belly and thighs of brass. And following the Greek rule came Rome, "the legs of iron" (160 B.C.-488 A.D.); and as the legs split in two, so did the Roman Empire, with one leg being East (Constantinople/Istanbul) and the other being West (Rome).

This part of the prophecy has been accurately fulfilled. The two legs of iron ended in two feet with five toes each. These ten toes would be part iron and part clay, meaning, of course, that some would be strong and others weak. These nations formed between 496 and 1829. In 1821, the Greeks rebelled against the Ottoman Turks and in 1830 it was proclaimed a state. It was in "the days of these kings" that the "God of Heaven would set up a kingdom which should never be destroyed," and which would not be left to another people, as the ones in the past had been. This kingdom would not conquer by the sword, but would be the Kingdom of God on the Earth.

And finally, this kingdom will not be established throughout the Earth until Christ comes. It's power will be predominantly in the Americas. After Christ's return, the church will fill the Earth and become an actual kingdom under the reign of Christ.

[Uncle Dale]

According to prophecy, the missionaries of the church will at some point be withdrawn.

Sometime after that, a wide ranging series of natural disasters will begin sweeping the

world. These disasters will quickly overtake the government's resources and ability to

maintain order. At that point civil war will begin to break out in cities and states here,

and in cities and nations worldwide.... when Jesus returns, the U.S. flag will still be flying.

Withdrawn? Withdrawn to where?

You are speaking like Heber C. Kimball back in 1856, when the Mormon missionaries

could be "called back" to The Valley, where their families and friends resided.

If "every member is a missionary," then I might also extend my first query to say,

"Missionaries? Missionaries from where?"

The Mormon mindset still does not seem to have come to grips with the fact that there is

no gathering these days, and that all the world is a Zion. There is simply no possible way

to "call in" all the LDS, world-wide, and have them assemble in Western Samoa, or Arizona,

or some such protected place. This is not the 1850s -- the world and its population have changed.

Finally, where is "here?" -- The western hemisphere? North America? United States? Utah?

The old conceit that the Constitution is sacred, but the "office-holders in Washington" are demonic,

went down the tubes when LDS Legislators and Cabinet secretaries began to take up their duties

in that same capital city. Give this process another couple of years and the "wicked Gentile"

running the "corrupt establishment" there may himself be an "Elder of Israel."

It's time for the Mormons to whitewash over these old Political Kingdom of God delusions and give up

the dangerous notion of joining church and state --- ever --- in 1847, in 2007, or in the millennium.

I guess that's a lot for a non-member like me to expect. So, I'll simply ask:

What have your own GAs said regarding this topic, during the last few years?

UD

[freakin a man]

No, I don't think the Church is the "stone cut from the mountain".

Since the Church is the "people" (not a physical object), let's look at how the "Church" has done in comparison to the world population:

Church Members/ World Population/ Percentage

1900 - 283k / 1.65 Billion (.0172%)

1950 - 1,1 Million / 2.25 Billion (.049%)

2000 - 11 Million / 6.1 Billion (.18%)

2005- 12.6 Million / 6.45 Billion (.19%)

I'm absolutely impressed that the Church was able to go from .0172% of the worlds population to .18% in 100 years. But I don't know if I would look at that and call it "filling the whole Earth", especially since I used the Church's self reported numbers, and not a more realistic approximation of active members.

Also, as pointed out by luigi, there are several other religions with growth rates equal to or better than the LDS Church. JW's, Scientology, Pentacostals, and Seventh-day Adventists are also impressive stones. But I'm sure Daniel refers to the LDS Church, because the LDS Church is true.

Does filling the whole earth need to mean that the majority of the people on the earth are members of the Church. Or could it simply mean that the church is represented throughout all of the earth. If I burn a match in a room, the scent from the match can be found in all parts of the room though the molecules are a clear minority of the total molecules .

I believe it is the kingdom if for no other reason no other Church, group, organization can ever qualify to be it. The stone starts out small and grows til over time it fills the whole earth. This is not something that has do do with Christ's Coming in glory as that can hardly be called a small stone event. The way I see it, if its not the LDS Church, then I can't come to any other conclusion but that Daniel 2 is complete BS.

[freakin a man]

Let us remember that the kingdom set up in the New Testament days was the kingdom that was given to another people.

Matthew 21:43: "Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

Acts 13:46 "I was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you; but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo we turn to the Gentile."

Daniel 2 speaks of a completely different kingdom. One which would not be given to another people. The New Testament church or kingdom given to another people is not represented in Daniel 2. I would say for the simple reason is it was completely dead by the time the small stone was made without hands. The great apostasy. Daniel 2 is making it clear not to be distracted with the kingdom that was given to another people. Its the one that will be established that will not be given to another that is the significant one that lasts that we should pay attention to.

[Cold Steel]

Withdrawn? Withdrawn to where? You are speaking like Heber C. Kimball back in 1856, when the Mormon missionaries could be "called back" to The Valley, where their families and friends resided.

Not only that, but many scriptures talk about going back and rebuiding Zion. We've never given up on that one and, in fact, many Latter-day Saints are fully expecting the day to come when members of the church are gathered to places throughout the world. (See Roger K. Young's book Dreams & Visions of the Last Days. I'm not tied in with his group, but he offers a number of scenarios regarding what many church members expect over the next few years.

Young recounts a manifestation he once had: "As a young missionary in Chile in 1973, after a night of being able to preach the gospel to a large group of potential investigators, I was recording in my journal the wonderful opportunity and the spirit that had been present and was still present as I was writing. All of a sudden the veil grew thin and among other things I saw the formation of a tent city near St. George as the people were called to leave the Los Angeles area. I was given to understand several things concerning the event, which I dutifully recorded in my journal." A few years later, he said, as he began studying and giving lectures and firesides, he began hearing of others who had similar dreams and visions. As Young sees it, there will be gathering places set up all across the United States and perhaps overseas. When people begin gathering, there will be no overt signs that anything unusual is amiss. There won't be a run on gas or groceries, and many non-LDS will think we've popped a cork.

Our whole religion is based on gathering and returning to the lands of our inheritance; of building up Zion and the New Jerusalem. But many in Young's group are dedicated to helping other Latter-day Saints prepare for this day by buying the right supplies and getting their one-year's supply of food.

The old conceit that the Constitution is sacred, but the "office-holders in Washington" are demonic,

went down the tubes when LDS Legislators and Cabinet secretaries began to take up their duties in that same capital city. Give this process another couple of years and the "wicked Gentile" running the "corrupt establishment" there may himself be an "Elder of Israel."

You really don't understand the LDS church today. And if you don't think our national leaders are demonic incompetants, you haven't been keeping up with the news. J. Reuben Clark said in 1966, and I still believe it: "The whole course [of government] is deliberately planned and carried out, its purpose is to destroy the Constitution and our constitutional government; then to bring chaos out of which the new statism, with its slavery, is to arise, with a cruel, relentless, selfish, ambitious crew in the saddle, riding hard with whip and spur, a red-shrouded band of night riders for despotism." (President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Church News. This quote was shared to the saints by President Benson in General Conference on Sunday, October 2, 1966.)

President Benson went so far as to say that having our year's supply of food might be as important to our survival as boarding the ark was to Noah.

It's time for the Mormons to whitewash over these old Political Kingdom of God delusions and give up

the dangerous notion of joining church and state --- ever --- in 1847, in 2007, or in the millennium. I guess that's a lot for a non-member like me to expect. So, I'll simply ask: What have your own GAs said regarding this topic, during the last few years?

I'll have to address this later, but here's a quote from the Book of Mormon:

Yea, [God's people] shall not be beaten down by the storm at the last day; yea, neither shall they be harrowed up by the whirlwinds; but when the storm cometh they shall be gathered together in their place, that the storm cannot penetrate to them; yea, neither shall they be driven with fierce winds whithersoever the enemy listeth to carry them. But behold, they are in the hands of the Lord of the harvest, and they are his; and he will raise them up at the last day. (Alma 26:5-7)

[Uncle Dale]

...

You really don't understand the LDS church today.

I have not attended its Sunday meetings, to any mentionable extent, since 1979-81. So you

are correct -- I do not know what the leaders are saying today (other than what I might happen

to catch in conference talks put on local TV by BYU-Hawaii).

But even 30 years ago, I still did not know much. I once asked an LDS friend with some degree

of Church responsibilty back in Ohio, "What activities do The Brethren plan and execute behind

closed doors?" His answer: "Do you think they tell us THAT? We just trust they are doing the

Lord's work and look to their guidance."

That didn't tell me much, did it?

And if you don't think our national leaders are demonic incompetants, you haven't been keeping

up with the news....

Next time Harry Reid and Orson Hatch get together for a photo-op, I'll be sure and look at

their smiling faces. I don't recall GBH saying anything bad about GWB when they met in SLC.

Nor Mitt saying anything bad about Jeb (who is not yet a "national" leader, I suppose) --

Are there certain "national leaders" that I should hate? Do we need to employ a few clean-cut

Blackwater Security "closers" with Cache Valley accents to move in and solve the problem?

Did Jesus plot with the Zealots to overthrow Pilate?

President Benson went so far as to say that having our year's supply of food might be as important to our survival as boarding the ark was to Noah.

"Our survival" ????? ----- Mormons care about surviving themselves, but not their Gentile neighbors,

relatives, co-workers, fellow political campaign workers, students, patients, and MB correspondants?

The thermonuclear bombs from Iran begin to fall on Hill Air Force Base, and the Mormons say "well,

we've got 'our survival' taken care of...... too bad about the kids in that non-LDS orphanage next door."

Hopefully not -- hopefully a Mormon would give up his last crust of bread to a starving Samaritan,

if the Holy Spirit so prompted him.

UD

.

[Deborah]

Of course the gathering of Israel is on-going and currently within the scattered stakes of Zion. Now we know that there is no way that all the membership of the church can gather to America, nor does the church want them to. Rather they are told to gather in their own nations but I do believe that the time will come when the stakes of Zion will have to tighten her borders and gather her people to certain areas, just for the safety of the people. Not only LDS will be in these places of refuge but many others who are seeking safety and security.

I do believe our sacred Constitution is in jeopardy and already there has been a systematic erosion of it, with states losing more and more rights to the federal government. The federal government was never intended to be the greater power and with border issues and other issues beleaguring the states, some states are beginning to take back their rights. But what happens when the federal government decides they won't allow this any longer? The National Guard which has been under the states has been deployed and we no longer have the militia within the states to protect those states rights. There are few polititicians who seem to have the Constitution as their basis for action, and I don't care if they are LDS or not, if they do not understand what is at stake they shouldn't be in office.

[3DOP]

Let us remember that the kingdom set up in the New Testament days was the kingdom that was given to another people.

Matthew 21:43: "Therefore say I unto you, the kingdom of God shall be taken from you and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof."

3DOP

It seems to me like it is possible that Christ was warning the scribes and Pharisees in Mt. 21. When He noted that the kingdom of God would be taken away, it seems to be in direct parallel with the parables He has just told. I am suggesting He might have meant the Old Testament order with Temples, animal sacrifices, and Jewish leaders as the kingdom which would be taken away and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits. Apparently, that is the way they understood it as well:

And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they knew that he spoke of them.

---Mt. 21:45

I am not saying that your interpretation is certainly false, but I do take issue if you would dogmatically assert that there is no other way of understanding Mt. 21:43 than what you have offered above. I have offered a fuller explanation of another interpretation than the one you suggest in post #38 of this same thread. It was directed to someone else, but you are also welcome to explain why the theory that I present, understanding Christ to be warning the Jewish leaders about losing the kingdom is false. Virtually the entire context is Christ and the Jewish leaders and then ends with them perceiving it was about them. I admit, they might have been wrong, but I tend to think it quite possible that they understood His meaning correctly as appertaining to them.

[kamenraider]

It's time for the Mormons to whitewash over these old Political Kingdom of God delusions and give up

the dangerous notion of joining church and state --- ever --- in 1847, in 2007, or in the millennium.

I think it's time for true Latter-day Saints to carry out "Joseph's measures" and quit compromising and abandoning the principles he taught.

Here's an interesting quote explaining the stone in question better:

"I will correct the idea in regard to the little stone rolling forth, as foretold in Daniel, chapter 2. This is not so. It is stationary, like a grind stone and revolves. (He made a motion with his hands showing how it turned.) When the Elders go abroad to preach the gospel, and the people become believers in the Book of Mormon and are baptized, they are added to the little stone. Thus, they are gathered around it so that it grows larger and larger until it begins to pinch the toes of the image, and finally breaks it into pieces to be carried away like the chaff of a summer's threshing, while the stone will keep growing until it fills the whole earth."

--Joseph Smith, quoted in "Life Sketch of Henry William Bigler," The Juvenile Instructor 27, (March 1, 1892), pg. 151.

While the term Kingdom of God can include the Church, it seems clear to me (given the political context) that the Kingdom referred to in Daniel Chap. 2 is more specific than that.

D&C 65:2 The keys of the kingdom of God are committed unto man on the earth, and from thence shall the gospel roll forth unto the ends of the earth, as the stone which is cut out of the mountain without hands shall roll forth, until it has filled the whole earth.

I calculate to be one of the instruments of setting up the kingdom of Daniel by the word of the Lord, and I intend to lay a foundation that will revolutionize the whole world.

--Joseph Smith, History of the Church 6:365 (J.S. had been anointed as king a month before).

We furthermore believe, that being gathered together, it is our right to worship God according to the dictates of our consciences; we believe other things, also, that have been communicated unto us, that have been spoken and written about very plainly and extensively, viz., that God will establish his kingdom upon the earth, irrespective of what my opinion may be, or yours, or what the opinions of the government of France, of the United States, or any nation of the earth may be; we believe this is a deed that will actually be accomplished, and that God will introduce a rule and government of his own upon this earth, and that all nations, all rule, all power, all government, all authority, will have to submit to that rule, that government, and that authority; that is, this government will spread and extend until â??all nations (to use a very familiar expression among all parties) shall bow to the scepter of King Emmanuel.â? That expression is very commonly used, and very little understood; still, at the same time, it is in common use throughout the religious world generally. We believe it; we believe, too, that it will be literally fulfilled; that all nations will be overthrown; that these kingdoms, and governments, and powers, and authorities that exist on the earth, will be broken and destroyed, and that God will introduce a government and rule and dominion of his own.

These are some of our views. There are many people that have believed in these things, many religious parties have written about them; they have expected them, and believed in them; they have been part and parcel of their faith: there is nothing, remarkable, therefore, about this. But when we go a little further and say, we believe that we are the people, then it places things in another position.

Theory is one thing in relation to these matters, and the practical part is another thing. We do believe it, and we honestly acknowledge that this is that kingdom which the Lord has commenced to establish upon the earth, and that it will not only govern all people in a religious capacity, but also in a political capacity.

--John Taylor, Jan. 18, 1865, JD 11:53.

[Hammer]

Well, for one thing, I watched a recent Republican candidates' debate on TV in which

Mitt Romney said that his religion believes in the separation of church and state.

How can you have a world-wide kingdom prepared for the millennium, if its leaders are

not the leaders of a world-wide religion that has rolled throughout the earth crushing under

it all other rival human institutions?

The doctrine spoken of at the time of JS's own bid for the US Presidency was emphatically

one of joining church and state, with the ultimate triumph of the Mormons over all other

rival groups.

Did I miss something between 1844 and 2007?

UD

I don't seem to connect to your interpretation of the phrase --world-wide kingdom. We are now a world-wide church or kingdom. Doesn't mean there isn't still the world out there with opposing forces. Where does it say anything about world-wide domination and elimination of those not of the church?