Civil War Prophecy

[keith_brian]

Rev. 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Rev. 22: 7, 12, 20

7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

• • •

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

• • •

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

When all else fails, just extend the time frame.

New prophecy: Sometime in the next 500 years, behold, I come quickly.

Wait, 500 ... I meant 1,000 ... no, 10,000, no ....

Oh no!!!

You point being what? Has Jesus come back? Did I miss it?

[KevinG]

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

Too vague.

[keith_brian]

Perhaps reading what it actually says might help you. Try reading for comprehension. Uh no that would leave you without an argument.

New prophecy: An apologist will use an argument that a critic lacks reading skills when that critic disputes the truth claims of the apologist's religion.

[Jesterss]

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_alma...om/russcwar.htm

I'll look into this further, I had never heard of this before, as your post is the only time I've ever read this.. So I don't have an answer for you on the russian information. But I know that the french and british were not in alliance together, let alone in one with the confederacy... That is a historical fact that has been stated..

But as I said, I know nothing of this russian story of alliance because it's never been taught, but I will look into it..

[Ares]

New prophecy: An apologist will use an argument that a critic lacks reading skills when that critic disputes the truth claims of the apologist's religion.

Please show you have something to contribute to the conversation besides mockery.

[Jesterss]

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.

You have to do my homework? You have yet to provide any reaction to any of my statements other than to say that I'm ignorant and avoiding your statements and that now I need you to do my homework..cmon.. seriously.. respond to post #81..

[keith_brian]

Too vague.

It worked for JS ...

[keith_brian]

Please show you have something to contribute to the conversation besides mockery.

So, just to clarify ... implying someone doesn't know how to read is acceptable but calling them on that is not?

Got it.

[KevinG]

You have to do my homework? You have yet to provide any reaction to any of my statements other than to say that I'm ignorant and avoiding your statements and that now I need you to do my homework..cmon.. seriously.. respond to post #81..

Well, since you asked so nicely.

There you go again (in the immortal words of the Gipper). I never called you ignorant. I never said you avoided my statements. You did ask me to do your homework when you asked me to repeat my earlier statements (which were ignored).

My response to post #81 is that you tried to put words in AlterSteves mouth and lacked understanding of his explaination.

Again so its real clear.

The prophecy speaks of wars being poured out on nations beginning in that place, not caused by that place. Your insisting on interpreting that passage in a way none of the Latter-day Saints interpret it, then criticizing that incorrect interpretation is wrong.

The notes from that section (not scripture but guidelines to understanding the following verses) say:

Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, 25 December 1832 (see History of the Church, 1:301–2). This section was received at a time when the brethren were reflecting and reasoning upon African slavery on the American continent and the slavery of the children of men throughout the world.

1–4, War is foretold between the Northern States and the Southern States;

5–8, Great calamities will fall upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

This fits well with another statement I feel is inspired and one that is universally recognized as wisdom.

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." - Abraham Lincoln 2nd inagural address

Inspired. Yet Lincoln gave this address during the civil war not 30 years prior to it.

[volgadon]

I'll look into this further, I had never heard of this before, as your post is the only time I've ever read this.. So I don't have an answer for you on the russian information. But I know that the french and british were not in alliance together, let alone in one with the confederacy... That is a historical fact that has been stated..

But as I said, I know nothing of this russian story of alliance because it's never been taught, but I will look into it..

Don't know if it is still around, but the Yahoo group ColonialWars had some awesome information on that and pretty much anything to do with the 19th century.

[Vance]

You point being what? Has Jesus come back? Did I miss it?

Yup! You certainly missed the obvious.

Sorry, I am not in the mood to hold your hand. Especially since you don't want to be helped out here.

[volgadon]

But I know that the french and british were not in alliance together

Google the Treaty of London 1861.

[Vance]

So, just to clarify ... implying someone doesn't know how to read is acceptable but calling them on that is not?

Got it.

He didn't say anything about your ability to read. He only questioned your ability to comprehend. Do you not know the difference?

[KevinG]

FYI- here is what our Seminary Student Guide says about these verses:

Doctrine and Covenants 87:3 refers to more than the American Civil War. The Southern States did call upon Great Britain and other nations to help them during the American Civil War. Then, as prophesied in this verse, Great Britain and those other nations later called upon other nations to help them against their enemies—as in the case of the two World Wars, when the entire world was in some way affected.

[keith_brian]

Yup! You certainly missed the obvious.

Sorry, I am not in the mood to hold your hand. Especially since you don't want to be helped out here.

Oh, so Jesus is down here on earth then?

Do you think he'd come over to dinner if I invited him?

[Minos]

Everybody stop the insults. Those who are here to question anyone's religion had better do it respectfully if they want to stay in the thread. We don't expect those on the receiving end to be cheerful forever.

[Avatar4321]

I'm sure someone else probably already has, but I will point out that the prophecy stated that the Wars would start. The prophecy was specifically talking about multiple wars.

The prophecy also specifically stated that the South would call on Great Britain and when GB called on other nations to defend themselves, war would be poured out on all nations. That's exactly what happened with WW1.

Of course, I also have considered this could be a dual prophecy. That perhaps a second war will break out in South Carolina. Though I really dont see why it needs to be since it's already fulfilled to atleast the first few verses. The rest are still to come though.

[keith_brian]

He didn't say anything about your ability to read. He only questioned your ability to comprehend. Do you not know the difference?

Vance,

I never said you were gay. I only said you acted gay. Do you not know the difference?

Just pushing your buttons man. You know I love you

Edited September 15, 2011 by keith_brian

[Vance]

Vance,

I never said you were gay. I only said you acted gay. Do you not know the difference?

Just pushing your buttons man. You know I love you

I guess I do need to hold your hand.

You said this,

When all else fails, just extend the time frame.

New prophecy: Sometime in the next 500 years, a war will end all nations.

Wait, 500 ... I meant 1,000 ... no, 10,000, no ....

about a prophecy made in the early 1800's.

Here is a prophecy made in the early 100's (or late 0's),

Rev. 3:11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.

Rev. 22: 7, 12, 20

7 Behold, I come quickly: blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book.

• • •

12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.

• • •

20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Now, here comes the hard part (apparently).

If a prophecy is false simply because it has not been totally fulfilled is less than 2 centuries, what does that make a prophecy that has not been totally fulfilled in 19 centuries?

Here is some help. 19 centuries is a lot longer than 2 centuries.

I realize, that for some, this is a very difficult concept to grasp.

[rameumptom]

That the statement the Civil War was the beginning of the wars can be interpreted in a few ways. First, it can be understood as one of the first great wars of devastation in the modern world. Total war has been around for a very long time, but General Sherman was perhaps the first to ever intentionally use total war as a strategy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

It was the first war to use major technologies: rail road, telegraph, repeating rifles, gatling gun, ships made of iron, etc., were first introduced en masse in this war. Modern warfare is now based upon the ability to communicate across large areas, quick troop movement, and the best firepower.

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

http://www.47thva.org/pages/articles/Hager.html

List of modern warfare technologies and practices from the Civil War:

http://www.civilwarhome.com/civilwarfirsts.htm

The strategies and use of technology used in most earlier warfare would not have served for WWI or WWII, etc. But the amazing strategies developed by Robert E Lee, where a smaller nation with fewer resources could come very close to winning such a war against the Union, is quite fascinating to study. Most European wars ended with the deaths of a few thousands of people, and most property left intact. The Civil War still is known as the war with the most American casualties!

[Jesterss]

Well, since you asked so nicely.

There you go again (in the immortal words of the Gipper). I never called you ignorant. I never said you avoided my statements. You did ask me to do your homework when you asked me to repeat my earlier statements (which were ignored).

My response to post #81 is that you tried to put words in AlterSteves mouth and lacked understanding of his explaination.

Again so its real clear.

The prophecy speaks of wars being poured out on nations beginning in that place, not caused by that place. Your insisting on interpreting that passage in a way none of the Latter-day Saints interpret it, then criticizing that incorrect interpretation is wrong.

The notes from that section (not scripture but guidelines to understanding the following verses) say:

Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, 25 December 1832 (see History of the Church, 1:301–2). This section was received at a time when the brethren were reflecting and reasoning upon African slavery on the American continent and the slavery of the children of men throughout the world.

1–4, War is foretold between the Northern States and the Southern States;

5–8, Great calamities will fall upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

This fits well with another statement I feel is inspired and one that is universally recognized as wisdom.

The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." - Abraham Lincoln 2nd inagural address

Inspired. Yet Lincoln gave this address during the civil war not 30 years prior to it.

I read D&C 87 to my mormon wife: asked her what she thought this was talking about and she says: the civil war?

hmm.. why is that anyone who objectively reads this prophecy knows what it's referencing, yet those trying to defend his prophecy twist it to make it sound like it wasn't all about the civil war? When taken at face value, this prophecy sounds like it's completely about the civil war and the outcomes of it...

Objectively and at face value.. not manipulating..

Edited September 15, 2011 by Jesterss

[Jaybear]

Now, here comes the hard part (apparently).

If a prophecy is false simply because it has not been totally fulfilled is less than 2 centuries, what does that make a prophecy that has not been totally fulfilled in 19 centuries?

The answer would be false.

What good are prophecies that can't be understood, and relied upon by those who read or hear them, until events occur which could be twisted to fit the prophecy?

Sorry, but "shortly" means shortly, "quickly" means quickly.

The prophecies were for mortal men not immortal Gods.

[Jesterss]

It was the first war to use major technologies: rail road, telegraph, repeating rifles, gatling gun, ships made of iron, etc., were first introduced en masse in this war. Modern warfare is now based upon the ability to communicate across large areas, quick troop movement, and the best firepower.

The strategies and use of technology used in most earlier warfare would not have served for WWI or WWII, etc. But the amazing strategies developed by Robert E Lee, where a smaller nation with fewer resources could come very close to winning such a war against the Union, is quite fascinating to study. Most European wars ended with the deaths of a few thousands of people, and most property left intact. The Civil War still is known as the war with the most American casualties!

Where is any of this even stated in that prophecy though?

[ERayR]

New prophecy: An apologist will use an argument that a critic lacks reading skills when that critic disputes the truth claims of the apologist's religion.

I said nothing about your reading skills. What I was questioning was your ability to comprehend and that only after your repeated instances of ignoring the other side of the conversation where it was pointed out that you were misunderstanding what you have read.

This response to what I wrote only underscores your lack of comprehension skills or else a deliberate penchant to misinterpret.

[Mansquatch]

Let's fix this up

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 [within 2 months of said call], in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then [immediately] ^awar shall be poured out upon all nations [as a direct cause of this civil war. And if everything mentioned here hasn't occurred by 1866 you will know this is false and argue about it on the interwebz, which will also be created as a direct consequence of the civil war].