Last Days--Signs Of The Times

[Canadaigua]

So am I to understand that the difference between our belief in being "caught up" as outlined in the scriptures is so far afield from Evangelical beliefs that it is evidence of a different gospel, even in the light of the differences of belief within the Evangelical community?

If you believe in what EV's call the rapture then that would be one point that we share.  But the majority of what you believe and what I believe is significantly different.  But the other thread would be a better place to discuss that if you would like to get more in depth.

[Canadaigua]

https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-study-guide/the-revelation-of-saint-john-the-divine/revelation-11-two-special-witnesses?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-student-manual/1-thessalonians-and-2-thessalonians/chapter-46-1-thessalonians-and-2-thessalonians?lang=eng&query=rapture

 

Revelation 11:2 says that the Gentiles will “tread under foot” Jerusalem for forty-two months, which is three and one-half years. This has reference to a time of apostasy when the Lord’s work is symbolically trampled on. Verse 3 indicates that “two witnesses” will serve a special mission to the sacred city for 1,260 days—which is also three and one-half years. Symbolically, John saw that the ministry of the Lord’s servants balances out the time of apostasy, thus giving people an equal opportunity to choose between the Lord and those who oppose Him. Unfortunately, as this chapter records, many will not listen to those prophets.

 

 

1 Thessalonians 4:17. “Caught Up Together”

The Joseph Smith Translation of 1 Thessalonians 4:17reads: “Then they who are alive, shall be caught up togetherinto the clouds with them who remain, to meet the Lord in the air; and so shall we be ever with the Lord” (in1 Thessalonians 4:17, footnote a). Many Christians use the word rapture (from a Latin term meaning “caught up”) when referring to the time when the righteous will be caught up to meet the Savior at His coming.

 

Above are quotes from the two links from your post.  Both are still future events.  As I have noted earlier in this thread--in more that one post--since you hold what I would call a post tribulation rapture position then Jesus can not come back at any time because it would by necessity of your position come after the two witnesses.  So we would have at least 3 1/2 years at minimum before Christ could come back.  It was brought up that it is possible that the two witnesses could already be here--but there isn't any evidence of that and I don't know of anyone who believes that.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Canadaigua

[Robert F. Smith]

But Non Mormon Israelites do not hold the true priesthood.  So why do you think that this is speaking about them?

I'll let you find the answer yourself.  Hint:  The sons of Levi hold an hereditary authority to perform these sacrifices.

Correct ERay.

CannyDayga just doesn't get it, and he doesn't read the LDS Scriptures, or he would know that the sons of Aaron are priests by lineal right, even in Mormonism.  He might want to look in the D&C.  They primarily serve the tribe of Judah, but could request full function as a bishop within a Mormon congregation.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

From the OP, this thread is about differences of beliefs. Why is there such variation of beliefs about the "rapture" within the Evangelical community?

CannyDayga won't answer, so I will:

As with ever increasing denominationalism in general, Protestants are trapped by their own theological underpinnings, i.e., sola scriptura ("Only Scripture") is that underpinning, which entails interpreting Scripture by Scripture -- a circular method which leads to people interpreting Scripture according to their own proclivities (which vary infinitely), instead of interpreting according to the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:20).

 

Here are some enlightening review comments by Adam Gopnick on Elaine Pagels' Book Of Revelation: Visions, Prophecy, & Politics in the Book of Revelation (Viking/Penguin, 2012):

 

Pagels . . . shows that Revelation, far from being meant as a hallucinatory prophecy, is actually a coded account of events that were happening at the time John was writing. It’s essentially a political cartoon about the crisis in the Jesus movement in the late first century, with Jerusalem fallen and the Temple destroyed and the Saviour, despite his promises, still not back. All the imagery of the rapt and the raptured and the rest that the “Left Behind” books have made a staple for fundamentalist Christians represents contemporary people and events, and was well understood in those terms by the original audience. Revelation is really like one of those old-fashioned editorial drawings where Labor is a pair of overalls and a hammer, and Capital a bag of money in a tuxedo and top hat, and Economic Justice a woman in flowing robes, with a worried look. “When John says that ‘the beast that I saw was like a leopard, its feet were like a bear’s and its mouth was like a lion’s mouth,’ he revises Daniel’s vision to picture Rome as the worst empire of all,” Pagels writes. “When he says that the beast’s seven heads are ‘seven kings,’ John probably means the Roman emperors who ruled from the time of Augustus until his own time.” As for the creepy 666, the “number of the beast,” the original text adds, helpfully, “Let anyone with understanding calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a person.” This almost certainly refers—by way of Gematria, the Jewish numerological system—to the contemporary Emperor Nero. Even John’s vision of a great mountain exploding is a topical reference to the recent eruption of Vesuvius, in C.E. 79. Revelation is a highly colored picture of the present, not a prophecy of the future.

 

Adam Gopnik, “The Big Reveal: Why does the Bible end that way?” The New Yorker, March 5, 2012, online at  http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/03/05/120305crbo_books_gopnik?currentPage=1 .

[mfbukowski]

CannyDayga won't answer, so I will:

As with ever increasing denominationalism in general, Protestants are trapped by their own theological underpinnings, i.e., sola scriptura ("Only Scripture") is that underpinning, which entails interpreting Scripture by Scripture -- a circular method which leads to people interpreting Scripture according to their own proclivities (which vary infinitely), instead of interpreting according to the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:20)....

I agree totally.  They believe the bible because they believe the bible.

 

This is a serious problem in the logic of their position as you point out.  They attack us for accepting a Moroni 10:4 view of direct personal revelation and yet believe in similar principles themselves.

 

I had talks with Rob Bowman about this very point- how Christians know they are "saved" after an altar call experience, for example, and he could never answer the question.  The reality is that they accept the bible for the same reason we accept the Book of Mormon- and the bible for that matter- and that is because God has revealed to us personally that this is the path we should be on.  Yet they won't admit it.  They call it "rational" because it supposedly the bible brings with it historical evidence, yet of course we know there is no possible historical evidence for Jesus being the savior and atoning for our sins.  They refuse to see the circularity of their position.

 

Thanks also for the link on Revelation- great stuff!

[mfbukowski]

As I have noted earlier in this thread--in more that one post--since you hold what I would call a post tribulation rapture position then Jesus can not come back at any time because it would by necessity of your position come after the two witnesses.  So we would have at least 3 1/2 years at minimum before Christ could come back.  It was brought up that it is possible that the two witnesses could already be here--but there isn't any evidence of that and I don't know of anyone who believes that.

I have no clue what you are talking about here at all.

[Vance]

Recall the topic of this thread is not about what I believe but rather what LDS such as yourself believe.

Would you stop repeating this falsehood?

From the OP,

Christians and LDS have a few similar beliefs as it pertains to the latter times.Events such as: The two prophets who will be killed and then raised; increased turmoil and wickedness; earthquakes; pestilence; the battle of Armageddon; the second coming of Christ. However there certainly are some major differences. . . . This would certainly be helpful for further discussion . . .

I won't delve into the false dichotomy of that first sentence but notice that you want to have "further discussion" (yeah, right) of "SOME MAJOR DIFFERENCES".

If you don't outline what you believe so it can be compared and contrasted what differences are there to discuss?

[Vance]

Here is some more of what we (LDS) believe about the events leading up to the last days.

2 Thess 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Vance

[ERayR]

Recall the topic of this thread is not about what I believe but rather what LDS such as yourself believe.  You say that you have answered all of my questions but that is not the case.  A lot of your responses have been along the lines of I don't care.  I would think that since you believe that you have the truth you would be more willing to share that truth but thus far that has not been the case.

 

You are wrong again.  The topic is Last days - Signs of the Times.  Period - no qualifier that limits it to LDS beliefs.

[ERayR]

But the majority of what you believe and what I believe is significantly different. 

How would you know?  You neither know nor understand what the LDS Church believes.

[Robert F. Smith]

Here is a clue for you. Chris Smith does NOT speak for the Church. In fact, I don't think he is even a member of the Church.

Correct.  Chris is a doctoral candidate at the Claremont Graduate University.  He is not and has never been a Mormon, and comes from a Pentecostal background (I think), but has since given that up.  He has a blog at http://chriscarrollsmith.blogspot.com/ .

[Hestia]

It appears this thread is just to dispute the LDS beliefs without listening to what they actually are saying. Time to close.