Article Of Faith Number #10

[PtolemyGlenn]

Where does it corroborate in the Bible that the new Zion and control seat of power will be in the Americas?

Is this just wishful thinking and hoping or typical American arrogance?

[ERayR]

Where does it corroborate in the Bible that the new Zion and control seat of power will be in the Americas?

Is this just wishful thinking and hoping or typical American arrogance?

 

Nope, it is a revelation from God through Joseph Smith.

[cinepro]

Where does it corroborate in the Bible that the new Zion and control seat of power will be in the Americas?

Is this just wishful thinking and hoping or typical American arrogance?

 

It's not "arrogance" if it's true.

[PtolemyGlenn]

Maybe the revelation was wrong. When God returns to reign on Earth. We are no longer going to be seperated by countires. All nationalistic pride will no longer be needed. As we will be one people worsbipping the One true God.

Wll if if not in the Bible to corroborate such a claim than its incorrect.

[CV75]

Where does it corroborate in the Bible that the new Zion and control seat of power will be in the Americas?

Is this just wishful thinking and hoping or typical American arrogance?

It says the “American continent,” which is a geographic, not political or national designation.

 

Genesis 49:22 is often used to refer to the work of the Lord through Joseph, whether they be Lehites (Manassehites) or more recent Ephraimites, on the American continent. All of which refers to the latter-day restoration and gathering of Israel.

[PtolemyGlenn]

Thank you for "clearing" that up

[thesometimesaint]

Micah 4:2

 

And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

 

I am not aware of any Biblical verse that has Jerusalem as the same place as Zion.

[The Nehor]

Thank you for "clearing" that up

 

So why the "scare quotes"?

[bluebell]

Maybe the revelation was wrong. When God returns to reign on Earth. We are no longer going to be seperated by countires. All nationalistic pride will no longer be needed. As we will be one people worsbipping the One true God.

Wll if if not in the Bible to corroborate such a claim than its incorrect.

 

One of the main tenets of the LDS faith is continue revelation.   We do not believe that every truth in the universe is taught about in the Bible (we are not a sola scriptura religion).

 

In fact, LDS believe that such a teaching (that if it's not in the bible it can't be true) is anti-Biblical because the bible does not teach such a thing.  

[PtolemyGlenn]

Micah 4:2

 

And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

 

I am not aware of any Biblical verse that has Jerusalem as the same place as Zion.

The law and the Lord work together. So would could gather they are ne and the same place.

As oppse ld to a NRM claim that Zion is in the Americas which has no biblcal backing

[PtolemyGlenn]

So why the "scare quotes"?

It was cleared up but not 100% where I would be in agreement

[bluebell]

The law and the Lord work together. So would could gather they are ne and the same place.

 

 

This has no biblical backing, so why can we 'gather' it?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

As oppse ld to a NRM claim that Zion is in the Americas which has no biblcal backing

Were in the bible does the understanding that it must be found in the bible be found?

[CV75]

The law and the Lord work together. So would could gather they are ne and the same place.

As oppse ld to a NRM claim that Zion is in the Americas which has no biblcal backing

The New Jerusalem (Revelation 3:12, 21:2) is separate from Jerusalem since it is currently in heaven with God--Biblical backing.

 

The New Jerusalem is also known as Zion and will be established on the Earth (Isaiah 28:16 is future oriented vision of the New Jerusalem on earth)--Biblical backing.

 

Since Joseph climbed the well to bring all this about (his life as the savior of his brethren in ancient times is a type for his descendants work in Book of Mormon and Restoration times) – where else across the ocean from Jerusalem would this occur? Does not contradict the Bible at all, and has its backing.

[thesometimesaint]

The law and the Lord work together. So would could gather they are ne and the same place.

As oppse ld to a NRM claim that Zion is in the Americas which has no biblcal backing

 

There is nothing in that verse that says they are literally the same place, but they do work as one. IE; Hand in glove.

 

The people of the Bible knew nothing of the America's. But presumably God did. 

[David T]

Micah 4:2

 

And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

 

I am not aware of any Biblical verse that has Jerusalem as the same place as Zion.

 

Actually, to be fair,your example is a parallel. It speaks of two things from the same place - the torah/word of YHWH from Zion/Jerusalem. Zion was another name for the location of the Temple complex/Jerusalem. Read all of Micah, and the other prophets. These parallel doublets rephrasing the material in other words for emphasis is quite common. Pretty much all OT references to Zion equate it with Jerusalem and the nation of Judah. Do a search on LDS.org. An example would be in the Psalms, "Blessed be the Lord out of Zion, which dwelleth at Jerusalem. Praise ye the Lord."

 

This doesn't mean the concept of a New Zion being initiated in being built on the American Continent is false, it just means it's not surprising it's not spelled out in the scriptures written in an ancient  tiny middle-eastern geographical world.

 

The Biblical writers have no knowledge of the American Continent, so we should not expect references to it. We live in a new world. We should expect new revelation to take account of new knowledge. 

Edited January 29, 2014 by David T

[PtolemyGlenn]

This has no biblical backing, so why can we 'gather' it?

God created the laws for us to follow. Ie they are one and the same.

Thanks again for your attitude

[thesometimesaint]

Actually, to be fair,your example is a parallel. It speaks of two things from the same place - the torah/word of YHWH from Zion/Jerusalem. Zion was another name for the location of the Temple complex/Jerusalem. Read all of Micah, and the other prophets. These parallel doublets rephrasing the material in other words for emphasis is quite common. Pretty much all OT references to Zion equate it with Jerusalem and the nation of Judah. Do a search on LDS.org. An example would be in the Psalms, "Blessed be the Lord out of Zion, which dwelleth at Jerusalem. Praise ye the Lord."

 

This doesn't mean the concept of a New Zion being initiated in being built on the American Continent is false, it just means it's not surprising it's not spelled out in the scriptures written in an ancient  tiny middle-eastern geographical world.

 

The Biblical writers have no knowledge of the American Continent, so we should not expect references to it. We live in a new world. We should expect new revelation to take account of new knowledge. 

 

Doublets are a common enough literary form. That may or may not refer to the same thing/place. The verse itself is ambiguous. I agree in context they are often used as the same place. However as we both agree that Biblical authors knew absolutely nothing of the America's. We should expect that as their context. The European "discovery" of the "New World" changed a lot of ideas about religion.

[bluebell]

God created the laws for us to follow. Ie they are one and the same.

Thanks again for your attitude

 

Are you suggesting that disagreeing with you equals having a bad or snarky attitude?  This is a sincere question because I'm not sure what you are saying. 

 

What i do know is that i did not saying anything that any reasonable person would interpret as being rude or arrogant.  I asked a very simple straight-forward question, based on the perimeters for finding truth that you have laid out.

 

To the point of the post-when Christ comes to reign on earth again, His will be a theocracy.  It will be both political AND spiritual.  The verse in question describes that Jerusalem will be the seat of His spiritual kingdom, and that Zion will be the seat of His political kingdom.  

[PtolemyGlenn]

Actually, to be fair,your example is a parallel. It speaks of two things from the same place - the torah/word of YHWH from Zion/Jerusalem. Zion was another name for the location of the Temple complex/Jerusalem. Read all of Micah, and the other prophets. These parallel doublets rephrasing the material in other words for emphasis is quite common. Pretty much all OT references to Zion equate it with Jerusalem and the nation of Judah. Do a search on LDS.org. An example would be in the Psalms, "Blessed be the Lord out of Zion, which dwelleth at Jerusalem. Praise ye the Lord."

 

This doesn't mean the concept of a New Zion being initiated in being built on the American Continent is false, it just means it's not surprising it's not spelled out in the scriptures written in an ancient  tiny middle-eastern geographical world.

 

The Biblical writers have no knowledge of the American Continent, so we should not expect references to it. We live in a new world. We should expect new revelation to take account of new knowledge.

Thank you for your well balanced and fair response. Much appreciated.

[PtolemyGlenn]

Are you suggesting that disagreeing with you equals having a bad or snarky attitude?  This is a sincere question because I'm not sure what you are saying. 

 

What i do know is that i did not saying anything that any reasonable person would interpret as being rude or arrogant.  I asked a very simple straight-forward question, based on the perimeters for finding truth that you have laid out.

 

To the point of the post-when Christ comes to reign on earth again, His will be a theocracy.  It will be both political AND spiritual.  The verse in question describes that Jerusalem will be the seat of His spiritual kingdom, and that Zion will be the seat of His political kingdom.

No I am suggesting no such thing. You have just come across in numerous posts as narky and arrogant in your approach towards me.

I know understand what Ghandi meants when he said he liked our Jesus but not Christians.

I like the Book of Mormon but some of his followers are in a strange dance with me where I moce one step forward and because of this attitude pushes me two steps back.

[bluebell]

No I am suggesting no such thing. You have just come across in numerous posts as narky and arrogant in your approach towards me.

I know understand what Ghandi meants when he said he liked our Jesus but not Christians.

I like the Book of Mormon but some of his followers are in a strange dance with me where I moce one step forward and because of this attitude pushes me two steps back.

 

I have actually felt the same about your posts-that you come across very snarky and arrogant, as well as self righteous.  I guess we are even in our unChristlike assumptions towards each other.  Ghandi probably wouldn't want to have anything to do with either one of us.

 

Edit to add-i will try to be more charitable in the way that i read your posts from now on.  

Edited January 29, 2014 by bluebell

[Calm]

"You have just come across in numerous posts as narky and arrogant in your approach towards me."

I don't believe I've ever seen a nonmember before who has come on this board express this opinion about bluebell before. If you have difficulty with bluebell's discussion, I suspect there will be very few discussions on the board that you will be happy with.

[PtolemyGlenn]

"You have just come across in numerous posts as narky and arrogant in your approach towards me."

I don't believe I've ever seen a nonmember before who has come on this board express this opinion about bluebell before. If you have difficulty with bluebell's discussion, I suspect there will be very few discussions on the board that you will be happy with.

You see the thing is there are billions of people on this planet and unfortunately we are not going to get along with every one of them. And facebook wont let you have that many friends anyway.

I dont hate the poster in question as I do not hate anyone. Its simply a personality clash. I came on his forum to learn a little bit more and ease some of the conversations I am having with an elder on facebook.

I dont expect the red carpet treatment bit I dont have to feel harrased that every time I make a post, a certain poster is going to swoop down with their arrogance at being apart of tone one true church. Which funny enough my old church thought the same thing.

[PtolemyGlenn]

As for the topic in question. Thank you for those who were able to clear up Article 10