D&C 87:4&5

[Salem]

I know some argue that in D&C 87 the events described in verses 4 and 5 should happen in the same chronological order in which they appear in the prophecy. That is, these events should happen many days after war is “poured out upon all nations” as recorded in verse 3. However, because verses 4 and 5 are parenthetical statements, when these events take place is not restricted to or limited by their position within the text. To understand why they are parentheticals, read D&C 87 again; but this time, skip verses 4 and 5:

“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. . . .

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;” (D&C 87:3, 6)

Even without verses 4 and 5, the text still makes sense. But more importantly, note that the end of verse 3 is really the same period in time as the beginning of verse 6. It logically follows that the reason why the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn “with the sword and by bloodshed” (v. 6) is because war shall be “poured out upon all nations” (v. 3). Since verse 6 logically follows verse 3, verses 4 and 5 are parenthetical statements, which interrupt the flow of the text and insert additional information:

“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.” (D&C 87:4&5)

Furthermore, notice that both verses 4 and 5 begin with the expression, “And it shall come to pass,” which may also serve to denote a parenthetical statement within a given revelation (e.g. D&C 93:18).

Because verses 4 and 5 are parentheticals, they have some flexibility in regard to when the events they describe take place. As such, these events may occur during, but not limited to, the following three periods in time: (1) many days after war is “poured out upon all nations,” (2) many days after “the rebellion of South Carolina,” or (3) many days after December 25, 1832, when the prophecy was given. Another possibility is that the events described in verses 4 and 5 may occur during two or more periods in time, resulting in multiple fulfillments of the same verses.

[Salem]

So, when did slaves rise up against their masters?

Most critics dismiss verse 4 as false because there were no major slave rebellions or insurrections during the Civil War. Nevertheless, slaves did “rise up against their masters” during the Civil War, not so much by any slave rebellion or insurrection on some plantation, but by military action on the battlefields. Read verse 4 again:

“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.” (D&C 87:4)

Where else is one “marshaled and disciplined for war” except in the militia or the military? As a matter of fact, during the US Civil War thousands of freed slaves enlisted in the Union Army and fought against Confederate forces, in which their masters served. So, how did this happen?

When the Civil War began in 1861, there was an initial rush of free black men to enlist in the U.S. Army. Even though they had served in the American Revolution and in the War of 1812, black men were turned away because their enlistment was barred by a 1792 federal law. But as the war progressed, the number of captured and fugitive slaves (contrabands) grew quickly, as the number of white volunteers declined. Because the Union Army needed more personnel, they pressured Congress to change the law. Consequently on July 17, 1862, Congress passed the Second Confiscation and Militia Act, which freed slaves who had masters in the Confederate Army. Then on January 1, 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed all slaves in the rebellious states and allowed black men to enlist. (http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war/)

During the Civil War about 179,000 black men (10% of the Union Army) served in the U.S. Army and 19,000 in the Navy. Many of these black men were captured or fugitive slaves, who had masters in the Confederate Army. Once these slaves were freed, they were allowed to enlist in the Union Army, where they trained to fight. So, when these freed slaves actually fought against the Confederate Army in which their masters served, they were “rising up against their masters.” In addition, since both these slaves and their masters had enlisted in the Union and Confederate armies respectively, they were all “marshaled and disciplined for war.”

Former slave, Thomas Coles, related one of his own experiences fighting in the Civil War:

“A Long range of hills led ‘away from Lookout Mountain, nearly to Missionary Ridge.’ To join in the attack, Thomas Coles and his comrades had to ‘come out the timber and run across a strip of opening up the hill.’ The Rebels ‘sure killed lots of our men when we runs across that opening,’ but ‘we runs for all we’s worth and uses guns or anything. The Rebels turns and runs off’ Missionary Ridge, ‘and our soldiers turns the cannons round what we’s captured, and killed some of the Rebels with their own guns.’ Among the Rebels Coles fired on that day was his own master, Adjutant Robert T. Coles of the 4th Alabama Infantry.” (Andrew Ward,

The Slaves’s War: The Civil War in the Words of Former Slaves

, Boston/New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 2008, p.151)

Unlike Thomas Coles, most freed slaves who enlisted in the Union Army probably never fought directly against their own masters in the same battle, or perhaps because of the “fog of war” or sudden death, they never knew they had. Nonetheless, these freed slaves knew their masters were serving somewhere in the Confederate Army, and the fact that thousands of these slaves took up arms to fight against their own masters in the Civil War (whether directly or indirectly) fulfills the prophecy where it says, “. . ., slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.” (D&C 87:4)

[Salem]

Who are the “remnants” mentioned in verse 5?

“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.” (D&C 87:5)

Alexis de Tocqueville who traveled throughout the U.S. in 1831 with his friend, Gustave de Beaumont, identified Native Americans as “remnants” of a mighty race of people:

“I have crossed vast tracts of country formerly inhabited by powerful Indian nations who are now extinct; I have passed some time among remnants of tribes, which witness the daily decline of their numbers and of the glory of their independence; and I have heard these Indians themselves anticipate the impending doom of their race. Every European can perceive means that would rescue these unfortunate beings from the destruction otherwise inevitable. They alone are insensible to the remedy; they feel the woes which year after year heaps upon their heads, but they will perish to a man without accepting the cure. Force would have to be employed to compel them to live.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America,” Vol. 1, Part 2, Government of the Democracy in America, 1835) (:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html

)

[Salem]

But when did Native Americans vex the Gentiles according to verse 5? Wasn’t it really the other way around? Instead, didn’t we vex the Native Americans?

In light of Tocqueville’s description of the Native Americans in 1831, who would have thought in 1832 that they would ever “vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation” as Joseph Smith prophesied? Clearly, these Native Americans were no match for the United States. They were, however, a substantial problem for the divided states of America. During the US Civil War, most federal troops in the western states and territories withdrew to fight in the war back East. Even though volunteers had replaced these regular troops, many Native Americans saw a chance to reclaim some of their lands and/or perhaps a chance to seek revenge. As a result, Indian raids on the civilian population dramatically increased during the Civil War.

Because of these raids, many homes and crops were burned and livestock were stolen or killed. Thousands of people out West were vandalized, robbed, assaulted, kidnapped, tortured, and/or murdered as a result of these raids. Surely, the remnants of the land did become exceedingly angry, and they did “vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation” (D&C 87:5). Consider the following quotes:

“The Civil War left no part of the United States untouched. For the western territories, the disappearance of federal troops meant only one thing: an increase in the frequency and audacity of Indian raids.” (http://www.thegeozone.com/treasure/arizona/history/az_history4.jsp)

In Kansas: “During the Civil War the settlers of Ottawa County were driven out by Indian raids and returned in 1863, but spent their energy in defending themselves against the Indians.” (https://www.familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Ottawa_County,_Kansas)

In Nebraska:“During the Civil War many regular troops were withdrawn from Plains military posts to fight in the east. The Sioux, Cheyenne and Arapaho, seizing this opportunity, attempted to drive white settlers from their land. Beginning on August 7, 1864, the Indians made concerted attacks on stage stations and ranches along the Oregon Trail, hitting nearly every settlement for 400 miles from Julesburg to Big Sandy. Travel ceased for two months. The most severe attacks were along the upper Little Blue River where about 100 people were killed.” (http://www.nebraskahistory.org/publish/markers/texts/1864_indian_raids.htm)

In Texas:“The Civil War brought incredible bloodshed and chaos to the plains. As the cavalry left Indian Territory for other battles, and many Rangers enlisted in the Confederate Army, the Comanche and other Plains tribes began to push back settlement from the Comancheria. The frontier was eventually pushed back over 100 miles (160 km), and the Texas plains were riddled with abandoned and burned out farms and settlements.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas%E2%80%93Indian_wars)

In Iowa: “In the frontier areas of northwest Iowa, Indian raids prompted hundreds of settlers to flee to more heavily populated areas. Union soldiers were sent in to protect the settlers.” (http://www.iptv.org/iowapathways/mypath.cfm?ounid=ob_000265)

In Minnesota:“On August 17, 1862, one young Dakota with a hunting party of three others killed five settlers while on a hunting expedition. That night a council of Dakota decided to attack settlements throughout the Minnesota River valley to try to drive whites out of the area. There has never been an official report on the number of settlers killed, although figures as high as 800 have been cited.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_War_of_1862)

In Montana: “Anxious to create new free territories during the Civil War, U.S. President Abraham Lincoln signs an act establishing the Montana Territory. However, as Montana was on the unstable frontier, it did little to add to the integrity of the Union, and Sidney Edgerton, the territory's first governor, fled after suffering through several months of Indian raids.”(http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/montana-territory-created)

In Oregon: “During the Civil War, with most federal troops drawn from the region, the Paiute had had a relatively free hand in their raids on miners and mining camps, stagecoaches and stage stations, ranches and farms, and freight caravans, especially in the drainage areas of the Malheur, John Day, and Owyhee Rivers. Oregon and Nevada volunteers proved unequal to the task of taming them.” (Carl Waldman and Molly Braun, Atlas of the North American Indian, Facts On File, Incorporated, 2009, p. 172)

In Wyoming: “The outbreak of the Civil War led to the reduction of garrisons at all outposts. This, coupled with a bloody uprising of the Sioux in Minnesota in 1862, inspired the Plains Indians, nursing many grievances, to go on the warpath. In the spring of 1862, many stage stations along the Platte route were raided and burned, . . .”

(http://www.ultimatewyoming.com/sectionpages/ftlaramie/civilwar.html)

In Nevada: “During the Civil War years, with fewer troops out West, Indian raids increased—carried out by Paiute and Bannock as well as Shoshone—with overland routes to California impeded. Mail carried along the road from Salt Lake City was waylaid, and telegraph lines were destroyed. (Carl Waldman and Molly Braun, Atlas of the North American Indian, Facts On File, Incorporated, 2009, p. 173)

In Colorado: “In the winter of 1864-5 overland communication was interrupted for weeks in succession; goods and provisions were stolen; in the spring the Denverites were at times without the necessaries of life, and famine was staring them in the face. Indian raids were common day and night, and the settlers of western Kansas and eastern Colorado never knew when they were secure. Panic and consternation prevailed everywhere.”

(Eugene Parsons, The Making of Colorado: A Historical Sketch. p 200)

(http://archive.org/stream/makingcoloradoa00parsgoog#page/n8/mode/2up)

In New Mexico: “The result of increased raids by the Navajos was increased attention from the military forces of the Southwest. During the Civil War, the New Mexico Territory was the scene of extensive Indian raids.” (http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1991/1/91.01.01.x.html)

In Arizona: “During the Civil War, nearly all the Federal troops were pulled out of the Arizona Territory. This left the territory unprotected from hostile Indian raids. The Indians in the Territory especially the Apaches used the opportunity to attack and drive settlers, ranchers and miners out of what they considered their homeland.”

(http://copperarea.com/pages/tales-and-places-of-the-copper-corridor-riverside/)

I welcome any constructive criticisms of my argument concerning D&C 87:4&5. If you think I am wrong completely or in part, please explain why. If you have any suggestions you think will improve my argument, please let me know. Thank you.

[ERayR]

So, when did slaves rise up against their masters?

Every time there is an uprising, any where in the world, against a despotic government there are slaves rising up against their masters who are marshaled for war.

[The Nehor]

Also if Nephi's prophecies are any indication the scourging of the Gentiles by the Israelites is gonna be big.

[ksfisher]

Who are the “remnants” mentioned in verse 5?

“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.” (D&C 87:5)

Alexis de Tocqueville who traveled throughout the U.S. in 1831 with his friend, Gustave de Beaumont, identified Native Americans as “remnants” of a mighty race of people:

“I have crossed vast tracts of country formerly inhabited by powerful Indian nations who are now extinct; I have passed some time among remnants of tribes, which witness the daily decline of their numbers and of the glory of their independence; and I have heard these Indians themselves anticipate the impending doom of their race. Every European can perceive means that would rescue these unfortunate beings from the destruction otherwise inevitable. They alone are insensible to the remedy; they feel the woes which year after year heaps upon their heads, but they will perish to a man without accepting the cure. Force would have to be employed to compel them to live.” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America,” Vol. 1, Part 2, Government of the Democracy in America, 1835) (:

http://xroads.virgin...C/toc_indx.html

)

I'm afraid that I don't understand how Alexis de Tocqueville calling Native Americans a remnant has relevance to the remnant referred to in the D&C.

[Stone holm]

I have always understood the "vexing" by the Native Americans to be a futuristic thing based on our lack of righteousness. As to the Civil War prophecy, shortly around the time of the prophecy South Carolina had caused a secessionist crisis that almost got things going back closer to the prophecy that got shut down because we decided to go beat up the Mexicans instead. We then in our comments have assumed that the prophecy was as to the Civil War which started in the 1860's. But why would we necessarily say it was strictly limited to that the war started in South Carolina when South Carolina has always been a hotbed for disunion and continues to fire off unpatriotic stuff to this day, is it possible that some South Carolina whacko could get things going again -- say with another nullification statute?....oh wait, what was that in the news?

One of the great dangers of prophecies like this is the tendency to not know for sure whether they are referring to the past, present or future. Kind of like the Jews still leaving a vacant seat for Elijah at the Passover...

[Ahab]

One of the great dangers of prophecies like this is the tendency to not know for sure whether they are referring to the past, present or future. Kind of like the Jews still leaving a vacant seat for Elijah at the Passover...

One of the great insights into the prophecies of God is that they have relevance to more than only one event... or only 2 events, or 3, or 4, etc.

[Nevo]

.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Nevo

[ERayR]

“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.” (D&C 87:4)

I don't read this to mean that the slaves "shall be marshalled and disciplined for war" but rather the masters. Grammatically that appears to be the better reading. The implication being that the slaves will rise up while their masters are out fighting. That didn't happen though.

Also, the apocalyptic picture of the Lamanites (Native Americans) rising up to vex the Gentiles (Americans) echoes the Book of Mormon prophecies in 3 Nephi 16:15, 20:16, and 21:12 where the Lamanites are depicted as future agents of God's wrath against the Gentiles for their wickedness and unbelief, but this didn't really happen either—at least not on the scale implied by the Book of Mormon's descriptions. The States were never under threat from an Indian uprising as Joseph envisioned.

I think you are misreading it. See post # 5.

[Salem]

I'm afraid that I don't understand how Alexis de Tocqueville calling Native Americans a remnant has relevance to the remnant referred to in the D&C.

In his work “Democracy in America,” Tocqueville made some astute political and social observations of 1831 America. Calling Native Americans “remnants” places this description of them in the same time period as the prophecy recorded in D&C 87. Therefore, the Native Americans could very well be the “remnants” to which the prophecy refers. And given the fact that the Native Americans did “vex the Gentiles” during the Civil War, I think they are the “remnants” mentioned in the prophecy. This, of course, does not mean the vexing cannot be fulfilled again in the future.

[Salem]

I have always understood the "vexing" by the Native Americans to be a futuristic thing based on our lack of righteousness.

And it may very well be again and more severely if we are unrighteous.

[Salem]

As to the Civil War prophecy, shortly around the time of the prophecy South Carolina had caused a secessionist crisis that almost got things going back closer to the prophecy that got shut down because we decided to go beat up the Mexicans instead. We then in our comments have assumed that the prophecy was as to the Civil War which started in the 1860's. But why would we necessarily say it was strictly limited to that the war started in South Carolina when South Carolina has always been a hotbed for disunion and continues to fire off unpatriotic stuff to this day, is it possible that some South Carolina whacko could get things going again -- say with another nullification statute?....oh wait, what was that in the news?

The Nullification Crisis was caused by South Carolina nullifying both the tariffs of 1828 and 1832. But the Tariff of 1832 was really a compromise aimed at mitigating the tariff of 1828. Half of the southern states supported the tariff of 1832 in the House, and in the Senate only Virginia and South Carolina voted against it. Referring to the Tariff of 1832,

"Most southerners saw the measure as a significant amelioration of their grievance and were now content to back Jackson for reelection rather than pursue the more drastic remedy such as the one South Carolina was touting." (Daniel Walker Howe,.

What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America

, 1815-1848, 2007, p.410)

It should be understood that once South Carolina passed its “Ordinance of Nullification,” it stood alone:

“Nullification leaders in South Carolina had expected the support of other Southern states, but without exception, the rest of the South declared South Carolina's course unwise and unconstitutional. Eventually, South Carolina rescinded its action. Both sides, nevertheless, claimed victory. Jackson had committed the federal government to the principle of Union supremacy. But South Carolina, by its show of resistance, had obtained many of the demands it sought, and had demonstrated that a single state could force its will on Congress.” (

http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-50.htm

)

“Upon nullification, however, South Carolina found itself politically isolated in the nation. Even most southern states refused to follow her lead.” (

http://sc150civilwar.palmettohistory.org/edu/crisis/Nullification1828-1834.htm

)

In spite of the Nullification Crisis, not everyone in 1832 thought there would be a civil war. Some did and some did not. But of those who did, most thought it would be a civil war between one state, South Carolina, and the federal government, not between the Southern States and the Northern States. Sure, there were a few who thought that more than one state might rebel, like South Carolina and Georgia; but again how would that have fulfilled the prophecy? Joseph Smith prophesied that “the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States,” not two southeastern states against the other states. In order to fulfill the prophecy, at the very minimum all the southern-border states would have to secede.

Furthermore, in 1843 long after the Nullification Crisis had abated, Joseph Smith prophesied again that the war would still start in South Carolina:

“12. I prophesy, in the name of the Lord God, that the commencement of the difficulties which will cause much bloodshed previous to the coming of the Son of Man will be in South Carolina.

13. It may probably arise through the slave question. This a voice declared to me, while I was praying earnestly on the subject, December 25th, 1832.” (D&C 130:12-13)

Therefore, in 1843 Joseph Smith knew that the war between the Southern States and the Northern States, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina would still take place.

[Salem]

One of the great insights into the prophecies of God is that they have relevance to more than only one event... or only 2 events, or 3, or 4, etc.

Amen

[Salem]

“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.” (D&C 87:4)

I don't read this to mean that the slaves "shall be marshalled and disciplined for war" but rather the masters. Grammatically that appears to be the better reading. The implication being that the slaves will rise up while their masters are out fighting. That didn't happen though.

I agree grammatically that the clause “who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war” describes the masters, not necessarily the slaves. So, it should be irrelevant whether or not the slaves are “marshaled and disciplined for war.” But I do suspect that the clause may apply to both groups; and because that was the case during the Civil War, I pointed it out.

[Salem]

Also, the apocalyptic picture of the Lamanites (Native Americans) rising up to vex the Gentiles (Americans) echoes the Book of Mormon prophecies in 3 Nephi 16:15, 20:16, and 21:12 where the Lamanites are depicted as future agents of God's wrath against the Gentiles for their wickedness and unbelief, but this didn't really happen either—at least not on the scale implied by the Book of Mormon's descriptions. The States were never under threat from an Indian uprising as Joseph envisioned.

Do you mean, not yet? Or it will never happen?

[MormonMason]

This prophecy is not a Civil War prophecy. It is a prophecy on war. From the very beginning more than one war is entailed. It speaks of "the wars that will shortly come to pass." It is a misunderstanding to think it merely addressed the Civil War and its direct aftermath.

It is the kind of prophecy that appears in Isaiah as quoted in Luke 3:4-6. Part of it addresses the time of Christ in mortality. Part of it addresses the time of his return in glory. Many years intervene between the portions but it is easy to see why some would be of the opinion that the whole thing should be fulfilled together.

Section 87 is like that. Many years intervene between some portions of the revelation. The time that war would be poured out on all nations would be when Great Britain calls upon other nations to defend themselves. That was World Wars I and II. Technology developed during the Civil War was used and/or was the precursor to technology used during World War I.

If we were to take the verses of the revelation in chronological order, it would seem that the slaves rising against their masters and the remnants vexing the nations would come after those times. They may well have had little to nothing to do with slaves from Civil War times and the Native Americans during the times that directly followed.

[Stone holm]

This prophecy is not a Civil War prophecy. It is a prophecy on war. From the very beginning more than one war is entailed. It speaks of "the wars that will shortly come to pass." It is a misunderstanding to think it merely addressed the Civil War and its direct aftermath.

It is the kind of prophecy that appears in Isaiah as quoted in Luke 3:4-6. Part of it addresses the time of Christ in mortality. Part of it addresses the time of his return in glory. Many years intervene between the portions but it is easy to see why some would be of the opinion that the whole thing should be fulfilled together.

Section 87 is like that. Many years intervene between some portions of the revelation. The time that war would be poured out on all nations would be when Great Britain calls upon other nations to defend themselves. That was World Wars I and II. Technology developed during the Civil War was used and/or was the precursor to technology used during World War I.

If we were to take the verses of the revelation in chronological order, it would seem that the slaves rising against their masters and the remnants vexing the nations would come after those times. They may well have had little to nothing to do with slaves from Civil War times and the Native Americans during the times that directly followed.

Yes, I think too much commentary has associated this prophecy completely with the Civil War South Carolina continues to be the least patriotic State in the Union.

[ERayR]

What you all seem to be missing is that the parts after the civil war prophecy are referencing world wide happenings. You all seem to be fixated on North America. Think world wide.

Edited May 25, 2013 by ERayR

[Stone holm]

What you all seem to be missing is that the parts after the civil war prophecy are referencing world wide happenings. You all seem to be fixated on North America. Think world wide.

Hm, yes. It has been frequently argued that Sherman introduced the concept of "Total War" -- not sure that is actually historically correct, but it has been asserted, and that thereafter the nature of warfare changed moving away from the concepts associated with "Just Warfare" as far as civilians were concerned.

[ERayR]

Hm, yes. It has been frequently argued that Sherman introduced the concept of "Total War" -- not sure that is actually historically correct, but it has been asserted, and that thereafter the nature of warfare changed moving away from the concepts associated with "Just Warfare" as far as civilians were concerned.

An interesting observation, whether true or not, but still misses my point. The bulk of this prophecy was directed at world wide events so when it says the slaves shall rise u against their masters it is not referencing black slaves in USA. They may or may not be included but the reference is to those in bondage (of some sort) around the world. Rebellions against despotic governments around the world, IMNSHO, fit nicely into this description. Likewise, take the rest and apply it globally.

[Stone holm]

An interesting observation, whether true or not, but still misses my point. The bulk of this prophecy was directed at world wide events so when it says the slaves shall rise u against their masters it is not referencing black slaves in USA. They may or may not be included but the reference is to those in bondage (of some sort) around the world. Rebellions against despotic governments around the world, IMNSHO, fit nicely into this description. Likewise, take the rest and apply it globally.

You would eliminate the racial issue?

[Salem]

This prophecy is not a Civil War prophecy. It is a prophecy on war. From the very beginning more than one war is entailed. It speaks of "the wars that will shortly come to pass." It is a misunderstanding to think it merely addressed the Civil War and its direct aftermath.

It is the kind of prophecy that appears in Isaiah as quoted in Luke 3:4-6. Part of it addresses the time of Christ in mortality. Part of it addresses the time of his return in glory. Many years intervene between the portions but it is easy to see why some would be of the opinion that the whole thing should be fulfilled together.

Section 87 is like that. Many years intervene between some portions of the revelation. The time that war would be poured out on all nations would be when Great Britain calls upon other nations to defend themselves. That was World Wars I and II. Technology developed during the Civil War was used and/or was the precursor to technology used during World War I.

I agree the prophecy is concerning “wars” plural, not just the Civil War; but because the Civil War is the first war prophesied and because some of the events take place during that conflict, it is often referred to as the “Civil War” prophecy. Perhaps we should start calling it the “War Prophecy,” or something along those lines.

If we were to take the verses of the revelation in chronological order, it would seem that the slaves rising against their masters and the remnants vexing the nations would come after those times. They may well have had little to nothing to do with slaves from Civil War times and the Native Americans during the times that directly followed.

As I explained in my first post, verses 4 and 5 are parenthetical statements. And so, the events they describe may or may not take place in chronological order. In addition, they may take place more than once. Thus, these events may take place during the Civil War, as well as during other times long afterwards that have nothing to do with the Civil War.

[ERayR]

You would eliminate the racial issue?

I would eliminate the localization of this prophecy. In some areas it may not be racial. In others it may be. Mostly it is despots enslaving whoever they can for whatever reason they try to justify their despotism. If racial it need not be racism by color. There is plenty of racism in the world that has nothing to do with color.