Civil War Prophecy

[Jesterss]

It doesn't matter. War was poured out upon all nations, immediately after the Civil War. Look at the list of wars that took place between the Civil War and World War I.

This is absurd. I'm done talking to you. Good day, sir.

Look at the list of wars preceding the Civil War.. then you will realize that saying such statements that wars would then involve all nations is asburd.. if he wasn't saying it would immediately happen and be the causation.. then he was merely stating what has always happened.. nothing changed..

[Vance]

Joseph never said Great Britain would get involved. He only said they would be called upon, which they were. The South also called upon France and other nations in addition to Great Britain.

Which is ANOTHER bulls-eye for the prophesy!!

Edited September 14, 2011 by Vance

[altersteve]

Look at the list of wars preceding the Civil War.. then you will realize that saying such statements that wars would then involve all nations is asburd.. if he wasn't saying it would immediately happen and be the causation.. then he was merely stating what has always happened.. nothing changed..

You're being ridiculous. After the Civil War, war was poured out upon all nations. It doesn't matter if "nothing changed." The prophecy was fulfilled. War, i.e., people fighting each other in armed combat, was poured out upon all nations. And it still is, and it will be until Christ comes again. This is what Joseph prophesied, and it has taken place. In other words, the prophecy was dead-on. Every part of it.

This is the last time I'm posting in this thread, so don't bother replying to this.

Which is ANOTHER bulls-eye for the prophesy!!

Edited September 14, 2011 by altersteve

[Jesterss]

You're being ridiculous. After the Civil War, war was poured out upon all nations. It doesn't matter if "nothing changed." The prophecy was fulfilled. War, i.e., people fighting each other in armed combat, was poured out upon all nations. And it still is, and it will be until Christ comes again. This is what Joseph prophesied, and it has taken place. In other words, the prophecy was dead-on. Every part of it.

This is the last time I'm posting in this thread, so don't bother replying to this.

How is anything I've said been ridiculous? I've stated facts. You say that JS prophesied that war would start in south carolina and indirectly lead to an increase of wars that would include all nations..

I have already pointed out that the amount of wars has not significantly increased from the time before the civil war.. and I have pointed out that war has not been poured out upon all nations..

[altersteve]

How is anything I've said been ridiculous? I've stated facts. You say that JS prophesied that war would start in south carolina and indirectly lead to an increase of wars that would include all nations..

Sigh...

No, I do NOT say that. In fact, I've repeatedly, time and time again, stated the exact opposite. Joseph Smith did NOT say that the Civil War would "indirectly lead" to anything, nor did he say anything about an "increase." He simply said that after the Civil War, more wars throughout all the nations of the earth would take place. And he was right. Now get real.

I have already pointed out that the amount of wars has not significantly increased from the time before the civil war..

So? This is irrelevant to the prophecy. Joseph never claimed that the amount of wars would significantly increase. He only said that more wars after the Civil War would take place.

and I have pointed out that war has not been poured out upon all nations..

Yes. But the rest of us have shown proof, time and again, that you're wrong. All you're doing is trying desperately to find flaws in places where none exist. Please stop.

And yes, my claim of not posting in this thread anymore is an example of what a real failed prophecy looks like.

[Jesterss]

Sigh...

No, I do NOT say that. In fact, I've repeatedly, time and time again, stated the exact opposite. Joseph Smith did NOT say that the Civil War would "indirectly lead" to anything, nor did he say anything about an "increase." He simply said that after the Civil War, more wars throughout all the nations of the earth would take place. And he was right. Now get real.

If I say that the rain will cause the river to flood, and you tell me that I said the rain would make the river overflow, isn't that the same thing? We may not have used the same words, but we got to the same conclusion correct?

So if Joseph Smith said that after the war that starts in south carolina would lead to more wars taking place (which is not how he said it either), isn't that the same as saying that the civil war indirectly (meaning not directly related to the civil war) cause more wars? Maybe you misunderstood the meaning of indirectly.

But that's basically one and the same. I don't see why you keep trying to say that's not what you're saying, when in reality, it really is what you're saying.. You say that his prophecy was that the civil war would lead to more wars.. but you say that the civil war isn't the cause of it, just that starting with it, more wars occur... let's take a look at his prophecy again:

2'] 2 And the ^atime will come that ^bwar will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.

Wouldn't beginning at this place simply mean that the civil war will be the beginning/starting point for the following wars? Therefore rendering the idea that the civil war is the causation?

So? This is irrelevant to the prophecy. Joseph never claimed that the amount of wars would significantly increase. He only said that more wars after the Civil War would take place.

6 And thus, with the ^asword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall ^bmourn; and with ^cfamine, 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 ^dchastening ^ehand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full ^fend of all ^gnations;

But he also says it will bring an end of all nations.. not to mention the fact that he says sword.. what happened to mechanized warfare? and the fact that none of that other stuff even happened..

Yes. But the rest of us have shown proof, time and again, that you're wrong. All you're doing is trying desperately to find flaws in places where none exist. Please stop.

You've shown no proof, you've tried twisting words to fit your understanding..

And yes, my claim of not posting in this thread anymore is an example of what a real failed prophecy looks like.

If we discussed that, it'd be two failed prophecy's to have been discussed in this thread

[KevinG]

You've shown no proof, you've tried twisting words to fit your understanding..

Priceless.

I love it when someone insists in telling me what I believe, which is in fact nothing like what I believe, in order to argue that what I don't believe is a false belief.

Call for references on any Latter-day Saint (living or historical) who claims the Civil War Prophecy means there is a direct causal relationship between the civil war and later world wars. (Hint: son't be fooled by more accurate claims that the Civil War and later wars have a common cause i.e. the wrath of God and man's evil).

Let us know when you find evidence that any Latter-day Saint would swallow this laughable interpretation you have of Joseph's prophecy.

Edited September 15, 2011 by DaddyG

[Jesterss]

Priceless.

I love it when someone insists in telling me what I believe, which is in fact nothing like what I believe, in order to argue that what I don't believe is a false belief.

How have I told you what you believe? You quoted what I said to alter.. I fail to see how that refers to you?.. If you are trying to say that I've said you have shown no proof, then that is true.. Where have you provided any logical explanations other than saying you're off to teach to boy scouts and say that I keep the same values as atheists because I claim that JS's prophecy was vague, yet you miss the entire point of my entire statement.. It has nothing to do with me believing he was vague, it has everything to do with me believing that he was wrong..

[Sevenbak]

I would like to add that alliances were formed during the Civil War that set a precedence for all the future wars which became world wars. It began in earnest with that war. I would even venture to say these alliances, which are ongoing and evolving, could even be construed as combinations...

150 years is nothing in the larger scale of prophecies. Look at the warnings and prophecies of war and destruction that occur in the BoM, predating the events by centuries... The big picture is big for a reason.

[KevinG]

How have I told you what you believe? You quoted what I said to alter.. I fail to see how that refers to you?.. If you are trying to say that I've said you have shown no proof, then that is true.. Where have you provided any logical explanations other than saying you're off to teach to boy scouts and say that I keep the same values as atheists because I claim that JS's prophecy was vague, yet you miss the entire point of my entire statement.. It has nothing to do with me believing he was vague, it has everything to do with me believing that he was wrong..

More reading comprehension problems I see. (I'm back from the Boy Scouts BTW) they complained as much about doing pushups as you complain about the Latter-day Saint posters interpreting the meaning of their own revelations.

I already told you I get it. You don't think Joseph was a prophet and use the Civil War prophecy as evidence. Your soup is weak on two counts. One- the Latter-day Saints don't see prophets as inerrant or as oracles. Your argument also relies on a hackneyed interpretation of tangential issues with the prophecy which no Latter-day Saint would teach.

[Jesterss]

I would like to add that alliances were formed during the Civil War that set a precedence for all the future wars which became world wars. It began in earnest with that war. I would even venture to say these alliances, which are ongoing and evolving, could even be construed as combinations...

What alliances? Please provide information. Would be interested to see what alliances were formed and how they set a precedence on the world wars..

150 years is nothing in the larger scale of prophecies. Look at the warnings and prophecies of war and destruction that occur in the BoM, predating the events by centuries... The big picture is big for a reason.

I agree, it's been almost 2 thousand years since Jesus was here, yet he is to return. But to say that the prophecy really does pertain to future events is quite a stretch.

[Jesterss]

More reading comprehension problems I see. (I'm back from the Boy Scouts BTW) they complained as much about doing pushups as you complain about the Latter-day Saint posters interpreting the meaning of their own revelations.

I already told you I get it. You don't think Joseph was a prophet and use the Civil War prophecy as evidence. Your soup is weak on two counts. One- the Latter-day Saints don't see prophets as inerrant or as oracles. Your argument also relies on a hackneyed interpretation of tangential issues with the prophecy which no Latter-day Saint would teach.

I enjoy reading your posts only because they include off the wall words that most people don't include in normal civil discourse, however, they don't fly above the radar...

If anything I said is hackneyed, then you must really think the Bible is hackneyed.. and if being hackneyed causes me to be erroneous, then perhaps you really don't believe in the bible either.. also: if anyone is dousing this argument with anything of a tangential nature, it's you discussing your boy scouts.. great inclusion.. great story... sarcasm to the last two.. hope you picked up on that...

[Jesterss]

And why edit your post after I've already replied?.. Make a reply, just as easy, don't try to make it look as if I avoided anything you have said..

so please, let's here your interpretation of D&C 87... Then we can discuss... Now go ahead, in your own words.. Please enlighten me

[KevinG]

I believe the Bible, the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and all revealed scripture.

I just don't have such a colossal ego that I believe I know more about them than the writers themselves.

I got your sarcasm and I raise you a hearty laugh that I'm getting lectured on civil discourse by someone who came here to challenge the Mormons on how they don't understand their own doctrines.

[KevinG]

And why edit your post after I've already replied?.. Make a reply, just as easy, don't try to make it look as if I avoided anything you have said..

so please, let's here your interpretation of D&C 87... Then we can discuss... Now go ahead, in your own words.. Please enlighten me

I was editing while you were still writing it seems. Nothing intentional there. You are welcome to respond to the whole post. That's the way the boards work sometimes when there is an exciting exchange.

I have already given my interpretation and so have many other Latter-day Saints. You have stubbornly refused to discuss the relevant revelations (there are two referring to the civil war incidently) from a mutual understanding of how the LDS interpret it. Why start over again?

Edited September 15, 2011 by DaddyG

[Jesterss]

I believe the Bible, the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and all revealed scripture.

I just don't have such a colossal ego that I believe I know more about them than the writers themselves.

I got your sarcasm and I raise you a hearty laugh that I'm getting lectured on civil discourse by someone who came here to challenge the Mormons on how they don't understand their own doctrines.

Did I ever say you didn't understand your own doctrines?

I asked why you believed it and have been breaking it down into discussion on a literal english discussional basis. Just because I have my view doesn't mean that your response is invalid, vice versa, but it does mean that both sides can try to break it down to a point where each see's where the other is coming from or reach some sort of understanding..

[Sevenbak]

What alliances? Please provide information. Would be interested to see what alliances were formed and how they set a precedence on the world wars..

I know it's not taught in school anymore, buy Russia had a strong alliance with the Union, and they were pitted against England and France, who were allied with the Confederacy. Look where that at least played into the events that unfolded in WW1 world just a few decades later.

Look up the Russell-Palmerston alliance. It's very eye openiong. Germany played a role as well.

It's the big picture folks. Joseph nailed it on the head. War did and will be poured out on all nations beginning at that point.

[Jesterss]

I was editing while you were still writing it seems. Nothing intentional there. You are welcome to respond to the whole post. That's the way the boards work sometimes when there is an exciting exchange.

I have already given my interpretation and so have many other Latter-day Saints. You have stubbornly refused to discuss the relevant revelations (there are two referring to the civil war incidently) from a mutual understanding of how the LDS interpret it. Why start over again?

well provide with those that I have missed.. I started the discussion with altersteve in a different topic so I suppose there could be some I have overlooked here.. If you feel that I've missed them please feel free to repost them and I'll do my best to respond to it as well.. I probably overlooked some stuff as I got a late start on the topic.. So I just went with altersteve and his views..

[KevinG]

Did I ever say you didn't understand your own doctrines?

I asked why you believed it and have been breaking it down into discussion on a literal english discussional basis. Just because I have my view doesn't mean that your response is invalid, vice versa, but it does mean that both sides can try to break it down to a point where each see's where the other is coming from or reach some sort of understanding..

I understand quite clearly where you are coming from. It does not agree with the standard LDS understanding of those passages. I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion that it somehow invalidates Joseph's office as Prophet.

You are offended by my pointing out that atheists use similar arguments and tactics (too vague, not specific enough, not worded the way I would understand it...) to try to invalidate the Bible and other prophecy.

You are avoiding answering the call for references of any Latter-day Saint lesson that taught or teaches that the Civil war has a direct or even indirect causal relationship with later wars.

[Jesterss]

I know it's not taught in school anymore, buy Russia had a strong alliance with the Union, and they were pitted against England and France, who were allied with the Confederacy. Look where that at least played into the events that unfolded in WW1 world just a few decades later.

Look up the Russell-Palmerston alliance. It's very eye openiong. Germany played a role as well.

It's the big picture folks. Joseph nailed it on the head. War did and will be poured out on all nations beginning at that point.

I was unable to find anything on Russell-Palmerston Alliance.. I found this: http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=18&item=history ,, but I'm not sure thats what you were referring to?

and I'm still not sure russia had any ties to the north. Can't find that either.. you got any literary/e-documents/pages you could provide here? Neither England or France were allied to the south either. Emancipation Proclamation prevented such an event. Your history is a bit lacking on this subject..

[Jesterss]

I understand quite clearly where you are coming from. It does not agree with the standard LDS understanding of those passages. I disagree with your interpretation and your conclusion that it somehow invalidates Joseph's office as Prophet.

You are offended by my pointing out that atheists use similar arguments and tactics (too vague, not specific enough, not worded the way I would understand it...) to try to invalidate the Bible and other prophecy.

You are avoiding answering the call for references of any Latter-day Saint lesson that taught or teaches that the Civil war has a direct or even indirect causal relationship with later wars.

Read post #81 regarding me "dodging" the call for references of any latter-day saint lesson that teaches the civil war issue..

Altersteve said what he said, I made my reply.. Feel free to reply to post 81

[Sevenbak]

I was unable to find anything on Russell-Palmerston Alliance.. I found this: http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=18&item=history ,, but I'm not sure thats what you were referring to?

and I'm still not sure russia had any ties to the north. Can't find that either.. you got any literary/e-documents/pages you could provide here? Neither England or France were allied to the south either. Emancipation Proclamation prevented such an event. Your history is a bit lacking on this subject..

Let me help you out... this once. I have other things to do this evening than play this game, just setting the record straight. You've obviously made a conclusion base on your own understanding. I can't change that, just provide info. I'm out.

http://american_almanac.tripod.com/russcwar.htm

Edit to add one small paragraph from the link. You really need to read the whole thing.

"The American Civil War was a global political war that came--several times--within a hair's breadth of global shooting war. The global battle lines were drawn between two international alliances: the Union and the Russian Empire, arrayed against the Confederacy in alliance with England and France--the Russell-Palmerston alliance with their tool, ``Petit'' Louis Napoleon (III)."

Edited September 15, 2011 by Sevenbak

[KevinG]

In other words I have to do your homework for you but you won't answer a call for references.

Thanks - I'm done here.

[keith_brian]

Well of course if you were an indian you may have a different take on it. The indian tribes were actually nations. The sioux nation, the blackfoot nation etc and they were powers among themselves. But they did unite against the white aggression eventually, just ten years after the civil war.

So, causal relationship between the American Civil War and WWI -- yes or no? Other posters have said no. What say you?

[keith_brian]

The common cause of all events was mans unrighteousness and the increasing influence of evil in the world. The need to stand in holy places was the conclusion of Joseph's warning. That was the topic of the prophecy.

New prophecy: People sometimes do bad things. This can cause wars.