Civil War Prophecy

[keith_brian]

Of course, between Korea and Afghanistan, there were wars in Vietnam (I remember that one well) and a dozen other places, and that's only counting those USmerica was involved in.

If you take the whole world (as the prophecty does), Russia was at war in Afghanistan even while we were in Vietnam. Africa was thoroughly poluted wiht war, Ireland was in conflagration, as was Spain (with the Basques). Southeast Asia form Laos and Cambodia to Thailand were all in flames at one point or another.

South America from Venezuela to Chile and Argentina fought their own internal and external wars (faulklands/Maldives, anyone?)

The Mexican War, the Spanish american War, hundreds of "skirmishes" and outright wars with Indians unitl the early XX, Ten Years' War between Cuba and Spain, Austro-Prussian War, lim Rebellion in northwest China, Franco-Prussian War, the April Uprising against Ottoman rule, Anglo-Zulu War in South Africa, Little War against Spanish rule in Cuba, the First Boer War, the Mahdist War in Sudan, British invasion and subsequent occupation of Egypt, Siege of Khartoum, Germany controls Camaroon, the Sino-French War, the Russian-Circassian War, the Chilean Civil War, US forces overthrow the government of Hawaii, the First Italo–Ethiopian War, the Philippine Revolution, the Battle of Adwa, the Greco-Turkish War, the One Thousand Days war in Colombia, the Second Boer War, the Philippine-American War. All in the XIX alone.

The Russian (Marxist) Revolution, Boxer Rebellion, the Sino-Russian wars, the Sino-Japanese wars, and a host of others beginning in the late XIX all attest to the accuracy of the Christmas prophecy through Joseph Smith.

To claim that war was not poured out on all nations is the far-fetched position.

Lehi

I am not talking about the number or frequency of wars in the world. That has always been high and will likely continue to be so until society and the human race evolve to a point where wars end. What I am talking about is a direct, causal relationship between the American Civil War and WWI. Is there a direct, causal relationship there. Yes or no?

[Jesterss]

Also, if you look at the amount of wars Great Britain was in from American Revolution "back", you would realize that nothing about them has increased in war status since our american civil war.. They have been at war a lot and frequently throughout their history, same with all nations.. Israel has never ceased to be at war with the palestinians and those out to defy their God. Hebrews exodus of Egypt on... Israel has never been "Settled".. so the civil war did not cause that.. therefore taking this out of the context that joseph smith said it in and to say that it would cause more wars, is also false, because it hasn't.. Like the above asked, where is the linkage or causation to the civil war? did the civil war cause the exodus?

[cinepro]

God didn't get into the details all he said was that war would be poured out on all nations. To me it doesn't make any difference rather it is a global conflict or a localized one it is still a pretty devastating event.

I'm don't think it matters rather or not cinepro considers them a war or not it is still part of the world wide picture.

That's not "all he said":

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.

5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.

6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;

Assuming verse 3 is referring to the American Civil War, in what way were verses 4-6 fulfilled, ending with "a full end of all nations"?

[LeSellers]

The South will call upon other nations, including Great Britain. Fulfilled. - Ahhh, here's the fun part, NATIONS, plurality is spoken here. Not just the nation of great britain, but other nation(s) which would include great britain.. As we know, great britain was the only ones called upon, but they weren't involved either.. so called upon sure, but not involved.. and great britain is not a plural nation...

Technically, Britain is three (or four) "nations". England is one nation in Great Britain, Wales and Scotland are two others. (I don't recall whether Northern Ireland is a fourth, and it's not important enough to look up.) Scots went on a rampage when the British mail service stationed mail boxes with "Elizabeth II" on them because, for Scotland, there was no "Elizabeth I"; she was an English queen but never queen of Scotland.

Furthermore, the Confederate States of America also called upon France to support them, as well. So, that's two (plural), even if you prefer to ignore the British situation.

Texas, as one of the confederate states, "called upon" Mexico for treaties and trade agreements. Some individual Mexican states did so.

In addition, the CSA asked Brigham Young and the Saints to join them, and promised them statehood. Brother Brigham refused, even though it would have been far better for the Saints to have statehood under the CSA than territorial status under the USA. The condition was, obviously, that the South would have to have won.

Lehi

Edited September 14, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

I am not talking about the number or frequency of wars in the world. That has always been high and will likely continue to be so until society and the human race evolve to a point where wars end. What I am talking about is a direct, causal relationship between the American Civil War and WWI. Is there a direct, causal relationship there. Yes or no?

Wrong question. You're reading a lot into the Christmas prophesy that simply is not there.

The Lord did not reveal anything that could be reasonably be construed as creating a "direct, causal relationship between the American Civil War and WWI". The statement is nothing more than a chronological sequence.

Lehi

[Jesterss]

Technically, Britain is three (or four) "nations". England is one nation in Great Britain, Wales and Scotland are two others. (I don't recall whether Northern Ireland is a fourth, and it's not important enough to look up.) Scots went on a rampage when the British mail service stationed mail boxes with "Elizabeth II" on them because, for Scotland, there was no "Elizabeth I"; she was an English queen but never queen of Scotland.

Furthermore, the Confederate States of America also called upon France to support them, as well. So, that's two (plural), even if you prefer to ignore the British situation.

Texas, as one of the confederate states, "called upon" Mexico for treaties and trade agreements. Some individual Mexican states did so.

In addition, the CSA asked Brigham Young and the Saints to join them, and promised them statehood. Brother Brigham refused, even though it would have been far better for the Saints to have statehood under the CSA than territorial status under the USA. The condition was, obviously, that the South would have to have won.

Lehi

First off, treaties and trade agreements are not a thing of war, would be the exact opposite and had no affect on the war, trade agreements between them were for selling cotton, no armor or weapons from mexico, that is not calling upon someone for help. We have trade agreements with China right now, does that mean we called upon them to help us in afghanistan?..

Now regarding Great Britain, you only supplied the information that says that scotland and wales and england are all under the jurisdiction of great britain, therefore, agreeing that they are called one. Joseph Smith didn't say England, he said Great Britain. again. that is not plural. That's like saying North America, but then saying well he meant america, but said north america, therefore it was 3 different nations,not just the whole of that region.

The south did not call upon France. The south had industrial/economical ties to the south due to the fact that the south had the cotton, this was prior to the civil war, not something that arose from the start of the civil war. But France remained neutral throughout the entire situation.

The emancipation proclamation prevented both parties from joining.... or even attempting to get involved.

[LeSellers]

First off, treaties and trade agreements are not a thing of war, would be the exact opposite and had no affect on the war, trade agreements between them were for selling cotton, no armor or weapons from mexico, that is not calling upon someone for help. We have trade agreements with China right now, does that mean we called upon them to help us in afghanistan?..

Pick many nits do you?

The trade agreements with Mexican staes (not Mexico as a whole) were precisely to protect lines of communication needed during the war.

Now regarding Great Britain, you only supplied the information that says that scotland and wales and england are all under the jurisdiction of great britain, therefore, agreeing that they are called one. Joseph Smith didn't say England, he said Great Britain. again. that is not plural. That's like saying North America, but then saying well he meant america, but said north america, therefore it was 3 different nations,not just the whole of that region.

The exact phrase for Great Britain was "the Southern States will call on other nations, ...", so it was plural.

The official title of "Great Britain" is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and "Great Britain" is Wales, Scotland, and England. As I pointed out above, the Lord did say that Great Britain was plural.

The south did not call upon France. The south had industrial/economical ties to the south due to the fact that the south had the cotton, this was prior to the civil war, not something that arose from the start of the civil war. But France remained neutral throughout the entire situation.

That France remained neutral has nothing to do with whether the CSA "called upon" her for aid.

International diplomacy

Once the war with the United States began, the Confederacy pinned its hopes for survival on military intervention by Britain and France. The United States realized this as well and made it clear that diplomatic recognition of the Confederacy meant war with the United States – and the cutting off of food shipments into Britain. The Confederates who had believed that "cotton is king" – that is, Britain had to support the Confederacy to obtain cotton – proved mistaken. The British had ample stocks to last over a year, and had been developing alternative sources of cotton (most notably India and Egypt) and were not about to go to war with the U.S. to try to get more cotton.

The Confederate government sent repeated delegations to Europe; historians give them low marks for their poor diplomacy. James M. Mason went to London and John Slidell traveled to Paris, but neither was officially received. Each did succeed in holding unofficial private meetings with high British and French officials but neither secured official recognition for the Confederacy. Britain and the United States came dangerously close to war during the Trent Affair (when the U.S. Navy seized two Confederate agents traveling on a British ship in late 1861), and it seemed possible that the Confederacy would see its much desired recognition. When Lincoln released the two, however, tensions cooled, and in the end the episode did not aid the Confederate cause.

Lord John Russell British Foreign Minister independently pressed to mediate in the American War.

Throughout the early years of the war, British foreign secretary Lord John Russell, Napoleon III of France, and, to a lesser extent, British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, showed interest in the idea of recognition of the Confederacy, or at least of offering a mediation. Recognition meant certain war with the United States, and war would have meant loss of American grain, loss of exports to the United States, loss of huge investments in American securities, invasion of Canada, much higher taxes, many lives lost and a threat to British trade. Intervention was considered by the British government following the Second Battle of Bull Run, but the Union victory at the Battle of Antietam and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, combined with internal opposition, caused Britain to back away; the British government did allow blockade runners to be built in Britain and operated by British seamen.

No country appointed any diplomat to the Confederacy, but several maintained their consuls in the South whom they had appointed before the outbreak of war. In 1861, Ernst Raven applied to Richmond for approval as the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha consul, but he held citizenship in Texas and officials in Saxe-Coburg-Gotha never saw his request; they strongly supported the Union. In 1863, the Confederacy expelled all foreign consuls (all of them European diplomats) for advising their subjects to refuse to serve in the Confederate army.

No nation ever sent an ambassador or an official delegation to Richmond. However, they applied principles of international law that recognized the Union and Confederate sides as belligerents. Both Confederate and Union agents were allowed to work openly in British territories. For example, in Hamilton, Bermuda a Confederate agent openly worked to help blockade runners. Some state governments in northern Mexico negotiated local agreements to cover trade on the Texas border.

Pope Pius IX caused a controversy during the war by writing a letter to Jefferson Davis in which he addressed Davis as the "Honorable President of the Confederate States of America." In doing so, the Pope appeared to informally (on a personal level) recognize that the CSA was a separate country. The Holy See never released a formal statement supporting or recognizing the Confederacy, however.

The prophesy never mentioned whether other nations would respond favorably (or unfavorably, for that matter) to the South's "calling upon" them. It only mentioned the calling. And it is clear that this is what happened.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

Incorrect. The US Civil was/is considered the start of mechanized warfare

[Jesterss]

Jesterss:

Incorrect. The US Civil was/is considered the start of mechanized warfare

What is your definition of mechanized warfare? Because it depends on what you're actually considering here. Some believe it was started in 1800. Others believe it was world war 1 with the inventions of tanks and automatic rifles. It was certainly not the civil war that mechanized warfare was created. so you sir are incorrect.

[thesometimesaint]

Jesterss:

http://www.aeragon.com/03/

[Jesterss]

Pick many nits do you?

The trade agreements with Mexican staes (not Mexico as a whole) were precisely to protect lines of communication needed during the war.

Of course, isn't that what we're both doing? But again, what communications did the south need left open? That confused me. Not sure where you're headed with that. But to say the made treaties to keep lines of communication open means there must have been some sentiment from mexico saying they were going to close these lines? Ive never heard of such things..

The exact phrase for Great Britain was "the Southern States will call on other nations, ...", so it was plural.

The official title of "Great Britain" is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and "Great Britain" is Wales, Scotland, and England. As I pointed out above, the Lord did say that Great Britain was plural.

If Great Britain is plural, which I agreed with already, then it's agreed that the mentioning of Great Britain must contain its plurality, meaning it is one nation. It is the nations of a whole, meaning one nation.

That France remained neutral has nothing to do with whether the CSA "called upon" her for aid.

The prophesy never mentioned whether other nations would respond favorably (or unfavorably, for that matter) to the South's "calling upon" them. It only mentioned the calling. And it is clear that this is what happened.

But it says that calling upon them will lead to other wars. Or the need for great britain to call upon other nations to help defend itself as well. Which none of that lead to any extra events directly from the civil war.... you're skirting that issue..

[keith_brian]

Wrong question. You're reading a lot into the Christmas prophesy that simply is not there.

The Lord did not reveal anything that could be reasonably be construed as creating a "direct, causal relationship between the American Civil War and WWI". The statement is nothing more than a chronological sequence.

Lehi

Let's say that I as generous as possible on this prophecy for the sake of argument and (setting aside evidence to the contrary) allow your claim that JS was 100% correct in his assessment of a civil war in the U.S. followed chronologically by a war in another part of the world.

How exactly is that evidence of JS's prophetic ability?

First, on the question of the American Civil War, there were many people, not just JS, saying that a war between the North and South over the question of slavery was imminent. Even if I grant that it was prophetic, it was a rather unremarkable prophesy because it was the same one that other people of the time were making as well, presumably without the help of daily conversations with God.

As for the second part of it, according to your chronological sequence theory, this part of the JS prophecy was equivalent to saying, "There will then be a war in the world sometime later involving a lot of nations." Wow. Way to go out on a limb there Joseph! Who would have thought that there would be a war later on between a bunch of nations? I can't imagine how much inspiration he had to have to guess that.

So, at best, the Civil War prophesy is a vague statement that really isn't very predictive of JS's alleged prophetic ability.

At worst (as supported by a pretty straight forward reading of the text), it seems to show that he was wrong.

Edited September 14, 2011 by keith_brian

[LeSellers]

What is your definition of mechanized warfare? Because it depends on what you're actually considering here. Some believe it was started in 1800. Others believe it was world war 1 with the inventions of tanks and automatic rifles.

The first "automatic weapon" was the Gatling gun, whose primary feature (multiple barrels) is still used today for extreme rapid fire weapons.

Repeating rifles differ from semi-automatic rifles only in that the former are reloaded from a magazine and recocked manually, but in one movement, between shots while the latter use "wasted" energy to accomplish the same things.

"Mechanized warfare" does, indeed, mean different things according to the context of the speaker. However, in this context, it means the widespread use of many kinds of new tactics (i.e., trench warfare—Lee was nicknamed “General Spade” for his use of this tactic) and weaponry (e.g., the Gatling Gun and submarine—the CSS Hunley was not the world’s first sub, but the first to see battle) along with new or fledgling methods of logistics (e.g., railroads). These new or infant items were first used in the War of Northern Aggression, and while many improvements have been added, there have not been any wholly new elements of war introduced since then.

The first use of aircraft in battle: a Civil War hot air balloon. First anti-aircraft fire was in the Civil War, too. First use of message-based telecommunications: the Civil War Heliograph and Semaphore system (invented by a medical doctor). The first use of photography as both espionage and record, the Civil War gave us those, too.

Today’s aircraft are far more sophisticated, but they were presaged by that balloon. Our modern rifles and machine guns shoot faster much more accurately (when there’s well-trained man behind the sights), but they are descendants of Civil War innovations. Artillery is more accurate, and it fires much, much further, but canon were never better integrated into the battle plan except by Napoleon.

Lehi

Edited September 14, 2011 by LeSellers

[KevinG]

No mind reading. I was presenting an objective interpretation of a written paragraph. If you can show that Smith had the tenancy to communicate in writing, in a manner in which no one at that time could conceivable understand, then I stand corrected.

But I will note that if we are to infuse subjectivity into a reading of the "prophesy", I will note that Smith audience believed that those were the "latter days", the return of Christ was eminent, and that they (not their great great great grandchilder) were the "latter day" saints.

Research dispensation and generation as used by the LDS Church.

Yeah, right. If that is what you want to believe, be my guest. When you see the rebellion in S. Carolina noted as one of the root causes of WWI in any credible history book, wake me up.

Neither the Prophet Joseph or I argue that the rebellion is S. Carolina was a root cause of WWI. Slavery, colonialism and conflicting interests of states and nations were the root cause of those wars. All of which can be tied back to disobedience to God and a dependence on the arm of the flesh. Given Joseph's focus and the tenor of his prophecies I can see the connection quite well.

The technological ties and mans use of industry to create more terrible ways to kill are also an intersting and viable thread that tie the conflicts together in the spirit of the prophecy.

[KevinG]

Oh boy. Another round of "my misreading of your revelations makes them untrue."

[LeSellers]

But it says that calling upon them will lead to other wars...

That is a tortured reading of the passage. How did you ever arrive at that?

Or the need for great britain to call upon other nations to help defend itself as well. Which none of that lead to any extra events directly from the civil war.... you're skirting that issue

And you seem to be making it up as you go.

3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.

"...... and they shall also call upon other nations ...." means the confederacy would first call on the nations of Great Britain and then call on other nations (like France, Mexico), not that Great Brtanin owuld do any calling (although they did in WWI, II, and later in the end-of-the-empire wars, e.g., Australia, New Zeeland, and Canada).

The Confederacy was also defending itself diplomatically (although not very well) agains the nations of Europe who also supported USmerica. They tried, and failed miserably, to get support from many nations in Europe, as the Wki article implied (see the quoted section).

The fact that others had foreseen the calamity of the WarBetween the Sttes both before 1832 and afterward does not diminish Joseph Smith's prophetic gift. They did not claim divine inspiration for their vision, but he did. They did not reach out beyond the rebellion of South carolina. Nor did they say it wold be about slavery. The biggest issue for them was the tariff question, not slavery, for any impending war.

The slavery question was reolved a dozen different ways (many "compromises", e.g., the Missouri Compromise, "assured" that this question would not be the cause of the war. No one foresaw a Lincoln). South Carolina was always among the most independent of the original thirteen states, and nearly did not ratify the Constitution primarily over the tax issue.

Furthermore, as few as four years before the Civil War, people were openly pooh-poohing the notion of a civil war.

New beauties are being revealed in the Mormon faith almost every day, and new prophecies of Joe Smith fulfilled. When any event of state occurs, or any remarkable circumstance happens, some of the Mormon apostles find a prophecy of Joseph’s (probably dated twenty-five years ago), which has just been fulfilled by the occurrence. These prophecies are never spoken of until after the occurrence. The fact is, the leaders frame the prophecy themselves after its fulfillment. Joe Smith did at one time prophecy that before the year 1860, the Union would be divided, the havoc of war spread over our glorious Republic, battles be fought whose equal was never before known, father would be arrayed against son, and brother against brother, and that our glorious Republic would be stained with human blood from North to South, the Constitution be trampled upon, and the Government fall to the ground; and then would the little band of Mormons rear the standard of their creed aloft, and proclaim to the world that the millennial year had been ushered in, and the reign of Christ begun.

But methinks the Mormons can entertain but little hope of the fulfillment of that prophecy, as the Union has stood the strongest test and did not even shake. But when I shall see the above prophecy come to pass, I shall probably then change my mind about the truth of the revelation. At present, I see no chance of its verification within the time specified

"Mormonism and its Origin, Number 4," The Golden Era, San Francisco, (18 October 1857

Notice the scorn. Notice the error (there was no mention of "before 1860" in the prophesy). But what is clear is that this writer was convinced that there would be no war between the states.

The prophesy does not say that the Civil War will be the cause of any other war: only that, after it, war will be pooured out on others.

Lehi

[keith_brian]

Oh boy. Another round of "my misreading of your revelations makes them untrue."

As I said in a previous post, AT BEST the JS prophecy here is a vague statement with no meaning. This is similar to me making the following prophecies:

1. In the next 50 years, a multi-country war will start somewhere in the world.

2. In the next 10 years, we will have a natural disaster.

3. Oppressed people will rise against their oppressors

4. People will experience hardship

5. War will continue to be common

6. A celebrity will die next year

7. There will be great upheaval in the governments of some nations

Based off my "prophecies", who here believes that I'm a prophet? But, that's essentially what apologists do with the whole JS Civil War prophecy. They take an already vague prophecy (one which, taken at face value, seems to not have come true), reinterpret it from face value to make it even more vague, and then claim this as a sign of JS's prophetic ability.

To reiterate, at BEST, the JS prophecy means nothing. At WORST, he got it wrong.

[keith_brian]

Oh boy. Another round of "my misreading of your revelations makes them untrue."

As I said in a previous post, AT BEST the JS prophecy here is a vague statement with no meaning. This is similar to me making the following prophecies:

1. In the next 50 years, a multi-country war will start somewhere in the world.

2. In the next 10 years, we will have a natural disaster.

3. Oppressed people will rise against their oppressors

4. People will experience hardship

5. War will continue to be common

6. A celebrity will die next year

7. There will be great upheaval in the governments of some nations

Based off my "prophecies", who here believes that I'm a prophet? But, that's essentially what apologists do with the whole JS Civil War prophecy. They take an already vague prophecy (one which, taken at face value, seems to not have come true), reinterpret it from face value to make it even more vague, and then claim this as a sign of JS's prophetic ability.

To reiterate, at BEST, the JS prophecy means nothing. At WORST, he got it wrong.

[KevinG]

As I said in a previous post, AT BEST the JS prophecy here is a vague statement with no meaning. This is similar to me making the following prophecies:

1. In the next 50 years, a multi-country war will start somewhere in the world.

2. In the next 10 years, we will have a natural disaster.

3. Oppressed people will rise against their oppressors

4. People will experience hardship

5. War will continue to be common

6. A celebrity will die next year

7. There will be great upheaval in the governments of some nations

Based off my "prophecies", who here believes that I'm a prophet? But, that's essentially what apologists do with the whole JS Civil War prophecy. They take an already vague prophecy (one which, taken at face value, seems to not have come true), reinterpret it from face value to make it even more vague, and then claim this as a sign of JS's prophetic ability.

To reiterate, at BEST, the JS prophecy means nothing. At WORST, he got it wrong.

Your presentism is showing. Remember Joseph predicted war poured out on all nations at a time before there had ever been a world war.

You can reiterate all you want but it starts looking like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nyah, nyah I can't hear you" if you rely on that as your final answer every time you post.

Edited September 14, 2011 by DaddyG

[keith_brian]

Your presentism is showing. Remember Joseph predicted war poured out on all nations at a time before there had ever been a world war.

You can reiterate all you want but it starts looking like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nyah, nyah I can't hear you" if you rely on that as your final answer every time you post.

What presentism? That I don't think two wars separated by 50 years and an oceans have a causal relationship? That I don't think that JS predicting a war involving multiple nations (but not all nations, if you read your history carefully) is particularly impressive?

Okay, I guess that that I'm a presentist then.

[why me]

As I said in a previous post, AT BEST the JS prophecy here is a vague statement with no meaning. This is similar to me making the following prophecies:

1. In the next 50 years, a multi-country war will start somewhere in the world.

2. In the next 10 years, we will have a natural disaster.

3. Oppressed people will rise against their oppressors

4. People will experience hardship

5. War will continue to be common

6. A celebrity will die next year

7. There will be great upheaval in the governments of some nations

Based off my "prophecies", who here believes that I'm a prophet? But, that's essentially what apologists do with the whole JS Civil War prophecy. They take an already vague prophecy (one which, taken at face value, seems to not have come true), reinterpret it from face value to make it even more vague, and then claim this as a sign of JS's prophetic ability.

To reiterate, at BEST, the JS prophecy means nothing. At WORST, he got it wrong.

I think that the JS prophecy was a little more specific than your examples. Also, we tend to forget the indian wars that followed the civil war. Custer died in the next decade battling the Indian nations. The indian wars ended in 1892 with the battle of wounded knee. And this was a war with the indian nations. And then after such a war within twenty years, there was a world war. Not bad really for JS and his bull's eye.

[why me]

What presentism? That I don't think two wars separated by 50 years and an oceans have a causal relationship? That I don't think that JS predicting a war involving multiple nations (but not all nations, if you read your history carefully) is particularly impressive?

Okay, I guess that that I'm a presentist then.

And yet we still forget the indian wars that involved mulitple nations. And also we forget the spanish american war in the 1890's. Good ol' teddy roosevelt and san juan hill.

[keith_brian]

And yet we still forget the indian wars that involved mulitple nations. And also we forget the spanish american war in the 1890's. Good ol' teddy roosevelt and san juan hill.

We also forget the French and Indian War, the American Revolution, the war of 1812, etc. What's your point? That wars are common? That's JS's "bulls eye"?

New prophecy: I predict that a war will start somewhere in the world in the next 10 years.

[Jesterss]

That is a tortured reading of the passage. How did you ever arrive at that?

That's what alter said.. that's how I arrived at that..

And you seem to be making it up as you go.

"...... and they shall also call upon other nations ...." means the confederacy would first call on the nations of Great Britain and then call on other nations (like France, Mexico), not that Great Brtanin owuld do any calling (although they did in WWI, II, and later in the end-of-the-empire wars, e.g., Australia, New Zeeland, and Canada).

What have I made up? So now you're telling me that it means the South would call upon other nations to defend itself.. Well as we already know, the south tried getting ships from great britain and possibly france (even though the gov't denied that), but to say they called upon france and great britain and mexico to help them fight the north is erroneous. That simply did not happen. To call upon someone is to ask for assistance. If you call upon your friend for help in a fight, are you calling him to stand there for support and clap on the sideline as you get pounded? No, you're asking for him to help you win this war by providing assistance... You're dodging the true meaning to everything and trying to make justification out of a clear statement.

The Confederacy was also defending itself diplomatically (although not very well) agains the nations of Europe who also supported USmerica. They tried, and failed miserably, to get support from many nations in Europe, as the Wki article implied (see the quoted section).

Again, how was the south defending itself diplomatically? They weren't defending themselves at all from europe, europe was not out to attack them. Defense is arming yourself to fight off the attacker, nobody in europe was trying to attack the south physically or politically. In fact, France was wanting the south to win because they needed the cotton.

The fact that others had foreseen the calamity of the WarBetween the Sttes both before 1832 and afterward does not diminish Joseph Smith's prophetic gift. They did not claim divine inspiration for their vision, but he did. They did not reach out beyond the rebellion of South carolina. Nor did they say it wold be about slavery. The biggest issue for them was the tariff question, not slavery, for any impending war.

Just because you claim divine inspiration doesn't make it so... I can claim that I have climbed to the top of Mt. Everest, doesn't make it true. But I don't see how you could say nobody saw it coming or revolving around a slavery issue either. Why did the missouri compromise occur in 1820 for? It was over slavery. I think that makes it pretty obvious that slavery was a topic of contention between the north and south, in fact, that's a big reason there was a north and south.

The slavery question was reolved a dozen different ways (many "compromises", e.g., the Missouri Compromise, "assured" that this question would not be the cause of the war. No one foresaw a Lincoln). South Carolina was always among the most independent of the original thirteen states, and nearly did not ratify the Constitution primarily over the tax issue.

the Missouri Compromise did not resolve the slavery issue. If it did, why do you think the Border wars between missouri and kansas even existed?.. If you dont think it had anything to do with slavery you're highly naive and deceived..

Furthermore, as few as four years before the Civil War, people were openly pooh-poohing the notion of a civil war.

Notice the scorn. Notice the error (there was no mention of "before 1860" in the prophesy). But what is clear is that this writer was convinced that there would be no war between the states.

People didn't see the Great Depression coming either... nor did people see the world trade center crashes coming.. does that mean nostradamus was a prophet of God because he had vague prophecies about 2 objects running into massive twin towers?..

The prophesy does not say that the Civil War will be the cause of any other war: only that, after it, war will be pooured out on others.

That's more vague than a nostradamus prediction for sure... You're reading the text in a construed way... It's clear what the text says and you're overlooking it to say that's not what he meant... so if he didn't mean that the civil war would directly cause other wars, you would then say he was just making a prophecy that more wars would occur? Yeah, that makes me even less so intrigued that it was a prophecy... anyone could assert that wars would continue to break out just as they always have in human nature...

Your presentism is showing. Remember Joseph predicted war poured out on all nations at a time before there had ever been a world war.

You can reiterate all you want but it starts looking like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nyah, nyah I can't hear you" if you rely on that as your final answer every time you post.

Your assumption that world war 1 and world war 2 were actually world wars is quite interesting.. Name every country in the world and then tell me how many of those actually were at war..

here's a map to help you out.. and this includes "verbal" commitments to such war, not that they even participated, but as you see, it does not include the entire world... http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1involvedmap.htm

[KevinG]

What presentism? That I don't think two wars separated by 50 years and an oceans have a causal relationship? That I don't think that JS predicting a war involving multiple nations (but not all nations, if you read your history carefully) is particularly impressive?

Okay, I guess that that I'm a presentist then.

"causal relationship" was not cited in my posts or Joseph's prophecy. Your entire argument against the LDS interpretation rests on something you erroniously read into the verse.

Lincoln does a better job of implying a causal relationship between slavery and the wrath of God in the Gettysburg address. (And I think he was kind of prophetic too).

As an aside the role of Prophet, Seer and Revelator in the LDS doctrines is not meant ot be oracle. There are a whole other host of issues with using a single prophetic statement to try to question the role of Joseph Smith as a Prophet.