Civil War Prophecy

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Wow!!!

There's going to be a Temple in New Jersey?!

Whodathunkit?

Lehi

Lol

NJ -

New

Jerusalem

Lol

[ERayR]

No, New Jerusalem is to be built at the temple lot, which is in missouri...

Illustration of your serious lack of understanding of this topic if not all things LDS.

[Sevenbak]

You are right but all JS did was dedicate the land. Like I said this is getting really sad.

The NJ is to be started at the temple lot.

Keep trying. I have not had this much fun in months.

He also forgets that the New Jerusalem will have 24 temples according to JS, just beginning st the temple lot.

[Mansquatch]

Matthew says in the generation of those who witness the tribulation..

D&C 84 clearly states in Joseph Smith's generation.

Which city shall be ^abuilt, beginning at the ^btemple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and ^cdedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.

4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city ^aNew Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which ^btemple shall be ^creared in this ^dgeneration.

5 For verily this generation shall not all ^apass away until an ^bhouse shall be built unto the Lord, and a ^ccloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the ^dglory of the Lord, which shall fill the house.

Joseph Smith dedicated the temple lot on 3 Aug 1831. That part is not a prophecy. As for the other verses let's fix those too:

4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints [not any gathering of saints, but this exact one right now, get started you idiots], beginning at this place [which by dedicating land and making plans in this place I don't count as a beginning], even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation [but if a temple is built in a different location in a few years then it doesn't count as having been built in this generation, so don't do that].

5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an [and by "an" I mean this exact one] house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house. [P.S. everyone line up in front of the prophet and wait your turn while I reveal the exact, specific circumstances of your death and everything that will happen to your children for the rest of time.]

[keith_brian]

How many people are still alive from Christ's time? That's from Matthew 24, not the D&C.

Context is key.

Your point being what? I don't believe the prophecy in Matt 24 either.

[keith_brian]

Remind me again. How many people are still alive from Christ's time? Nobody? Then I guess Matthew 24:34 is also a false prophecy, because it has the exact same wording.

Edit: Sevenbak, you beat me to it.

To reiterate: I also do not believe in the prophecy in Matt 24. I believe that the use of the word this generation (or equivalent) PROVES BOTH PROPHECIES FALSE, not the converse.

Thanks.

[keith_brian]

But you can't deny that he said "this generation".. meaning the current generation, he was not speaking in parables was he?

When were these stakes built? Seems to me they were built sometime later as to not make him look like a false prophet..

The use of the words "this generation" was poetic in nature. It was similar to the use of "horse" in the BOM to mean "tapir" and "sword" to mean "stick with obsidian rocks stuck in it".

Jeeze, I thought that would have been OBVIOUS from the context!

[Sevenbak]

Your point being what? I don't believe the prophecy in Matt 24 either.

Apparently we have dueling points. I very much believe that both Matthew (and john and luke) and joseph smith were correct.

[Sevenbak]

The use of the words "this generation" was poetic in nature. It was similar to the use of "horse" in the BOM to mean "tapir" and "sword" to mean "stick with obsidian rocks stuck in it".

Jeeze, I thought that would have been OBVIOUS from the context!

Oh boy... your apologetic audience demographic just narrowed substantially... but nice try to change the subject.

[keith_brian]

Apparently we have dueling points. I very much believe that both Matthew (and john and luke) and joseph smith were correct.

We'll agree to disagree then. To me, when someone says "this generation", they mean the next 20 years or so -- certainly less than 100 years.

[LeSellers]

It was similar to the use of ... "sword" to mean "stick with obsidian rocks stuck in it".

This is the biggest problem we have with people who overstate their case and misuse the ideas proposed.

No one has ever said that a sword was a stick with obsidian rocks stuck in it. What we have proposed is that a sword was a war club (a worked piece, not a random branch from the side of the road) with obsidian blades inserted along its edges. The part you left out entirely is that the Spaniards who first saw such clubs called them swords. The natives used them like swords, and they were in some ways more effective than the steel swords the invaders used.

Your obviously absurd, yellow-journalistic representation of the argument is essentially a lie.

Lehi

Edited September 15, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

We'll agree to disagree then. To me, when someone says "this generation", they mean the next 20 years or so -- certainly less than 100 years.

It helps to identify correctly the generation of which the prophet is speaking.

Lehi

[KevinG]

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..

Of course its about the Civil War... and other wars to follow.

[KevinG]

The way I read your paragraph and the prophecy which forms our larger discussion is that there are a series of events that occur, but the early ones are not being said to cause the later ones. It could be reasonably (but not necessarily) inferred that they have a common cause not being mentioned. In the case of the war prophecy, I believe there is a common cause in the unseen realm, but that there is no causal connection in the visible world.

Those who have eyes see. Lincolns remarks in the second inagural address about repaying in blood for the bondsmans lash seem to echo the causes of war for me.

[KevinG]

My mistake for coming back to this thread. It seems our esteemed critics are more interested in argument than understanding what we really believe.

[ERayR]

My mistake for coming back to this thread. It seems our esteemed critics are more interested in argument than understanding what we really believe.

Yes it does.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Of course its about the Civil War... and other wars to follow.

Yeah ,Jester scored major points there. Lol.

[keith_brian]

It helps to identify correctly the generation of which the prophet is speaking.

Lehi

"this" generation ...

[keith_brian]

This is the biggest problem we have with people who overstate their case and misuse the ideas proposed.

No one has ever said that a sword was a stick with obsidian rocks stuck in it. What we have proposed is that a sword was a war club (a worked piece, not a random branch from the side of the road) with obsidian blades inserted along its edges. The part you left out entirely is that the Spaniards who first saw such clubs called them swords. The natives used them like swords, and they were in some ways more effective than the steel swords the invaders used.

Your obviously absurd, yellow-journalistic representation of the argument is essentially a lie.

Lehi

As I said, the scriptures speak in riddles and enigmas. It's hard to pin down the meaning of any word, even one that is in common use in everyday vocabulary.

But, I guess that would depend on what your definition of the word "is" is ...

[LeSellers]

"this" generation ...

Which answers nothing. "This generation" refers, not necessairly to the generation existing when the remark was made, but to the generation to which the speaker was "pointing" in his statement.

Understanding that requires more intellectual energy than simply saying it was "this" generation.

Lehi

Edited September 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[ERayR]

As I said, the scriptures speak in riddles and enigmas. It's hard to pin down the meaning of any word, even one that is in common use in everyday vocabulary.

But, I guess that would depend on what your definition of the word "is" is ...

Or it could depend on where you lived, or when you were/are alive or a number of other variables.

[volgadon]

This is the biggest problem we have with people who overstate their case and misuse the ideas proposed.

No one has ever said that a sword was a stick with obsidian rocks stuck in it. What we have proposed is that a sword was a war club (a worked piece, not a random branch from the side of the road) with obsidian blades inserted along its edges. The part you left out entirely is that the Spaniards who first saw such clubs called them swords. The natives used them like swords, and they were in some ways more effective than the steel swords the invaders used.

Your obviously absurd, yellow-journalistic representation of the argument is essentially a lie.

Lehi

Naturally, professional ment-at-arms who used them in daily life couldn't possibly be expected to tell the difference between swords and stick with bits of obsidian...

[keith_brian]

Which answers nothing. "This generation" refers, not necessairly to the generation existing when the remark was made, but to the generation to which the speker was "pointing" in his statement.

Understanding that requires more intellectual energy than simply saying it was "this" generation.

Lehi

Or, since (as you point out) it's impossible to nail down exactly which generation it's talking about thanks to the vagueness of the statement, it could have been talking about any and every generation throughout the history of the world. Which means that it would have been wrong in the vast majority of cases, and right -- possibly -- in some future sense IF AND ONLY IF Jesus actually returns to earth.

Again, I am not sure why you keep bringing up these points. You try to use them to insult me, but they seem to be supporting my arguments instead of yours.

[keith_brian]

Or it could depend on where you lived, or when you were/are alive or a number of other variables.

Or not. Or it could mean exactly what probably 99% of the people in the world would implicitly understand "this generation" to mean and mean that exact generation when the prophesy was written.

New prophesy: The destruction of Los Angeles shall happen in this generation.

Apparently "this generation" can mean any time in the next 2,000 (and counting) years.

[LeSellers]

Or not. Or it could mean exactly what probably 99% of the people in the world would implicitly understand "this generation" to mean and mean that exact generation when the prophesy was written.

New prophesy: The destruction of Los Angeles shall happen in this generation.

Apparently "this generation" can mean any time in the next 2,000 (and counting) years.

For someone who denies the existence of prophesy, you certainly do make a lot of them.

However, there is a distinct difference between your "this generation" and those of Christ in Matthew and Joseph in the Doctrine and Covenants: they gave a context from which it is more than just possible to determine which generation "this generation" is; your "this generation cannot be determined by any means, since you gave no referents to judge from.

Lehi