The Next 100 Mormon Years

[Guest]

The key phrase there being "current Church doctrine".

I did qualify, current, ancient and prehistoric to all beliefs in one God. It predates Adam and Eve, the Church cannot be ruled by popular vote. The only option is a another more liberal LDS Church, which already exists and will be an easier sale. It is not a question of emotion, it is the first doctrine and institution God ever established, to our God, nothing was more pressing that the establishment of marriage and family. I just went back and read the thread title...how did we get here? Edited November 2, 2014 by Pa Pa

[carbon dioxide]

Similar to the last 100 years we'll probably see continued, incremental mainstreaming of the church. The church will probably see nice growth in some under-developed countries and mild decline in developed nations. Like the last 2000 years, a second coming will probably not occur despite all the prophecies made by message board prophets.

I see mainstreaming of the Church to be nothing more than an attempt to appease the mocking masses in the great and spacious building.  I rather be in a church that sticks to its guns and only get 10 convert baptisms a year than dilutes its positions to get 5 milllion a year.  Noah was a great missionary. He taught the people the truth.  The fact that nobody accepted his teaching does not mean he was a poor missionary.  It means that the people were wrong.  In the end, Noah won and the people who rejected his hard truths lost.  I would like to see the Church stop giving an yearly statistiic of how many people join the church.  It does not matter.  A missionary that teaches a 1000 people the gospel and gets one covert is just as successful as one that teaches a 1000 people and gets 500 converts.

[Sine Saw Square]

I find it interesting to see a number responders expecting the Second Coming to happen within the next 100 years. I was talking to a friend of mine (not on this forum) who said he figured if it didn't happen in the next 100 years there would be a lot of people leaving the Church. Does that seem likely?

 

I remember as a teenager worrying that the 'end' would happen before I had a chance to get married or have kids. Now I don't expect the end to come in the next 100+ years. I won't be surprised if it does but I don't expect it.  The message I picked up as a teenager in the 80s that this was the 'last generation' (spirits saved for these final days) probably wasn't helpful. I hope we are careful in our speculations around the youth.

[rockpond]

...the Church cannot be ruled by popular vote.

I agree with you on this point and tried to make that clear in my previous comments.

Aside from that, I don't wish to engage in a discussion that pulls away from the thread's main topic and that the moderators have asked everyone to stop rehashing.

Whatever changes may come, they need to come though the proper channels and can only happen (in my opinion) when we sustain the Brethren.

[california boy]

I find it interesting to see a number responders expecting the Second Coming to happen within the next 100 years. I was talking to a friend of mine (not on this forum) who said he figured if it didn't happen in the next 100 years there would be a lot of people leaving the Church. Does that seem likely?

 

I remember as a teenager worrying that the 'end' would happen before I had a chance to get married or have kids. Now I don't expect the end to come in the next 100+ years. I won't be surprised if it does but I don't expect it.  The message I picked up as a teenager in the 80s that this was the 'last generation' (spirits saved for these final days) probably wasn't helpful. I hope we are careful in our speculations around the youth.

I remember the same thing being widely taught.  People getting their patriarchal blessings saying they would live to see the second coming, the whole Saturdays Warrior thing.  My seminary figured out some dating system that put the second coming as 1982.  Of course every generation speculated that Christ was coming any moment.  Nothing new about that.  Even the apostles during the time of Christ thought he was returning shortly.

[Sine Saw Square]

Of course every generation speculated that Christ was coming any moment.  Nothing new about that.  Even the apostles during the time of Christ thought he was returning shortly.

Yes. I remember reading somewhere that the Saints at the time of the organization of the LDS church were under a similar impression- that the Saviors return was imminent. It would seem to behoove us to learn from past misunderstandings. Unless someone out there is privy to sources of information beyond me which is entirely possible... 

 

Curious then- If you do think the Savior will return in the next 20-50 years, what specifics lead you to that conclusion?

[teddyaware]

Several years ago I read George Friedman's book "The Next One Hundred Years'. It covers speculations, predictions and assessments of geo-politics, technology, and culture over the next century. He states in the forward that the by looking at developments throughout history- the one thing for certain is that the course of the global history takes unexpected paths and that predicting anything is really just a guess, educated or no.

 

With that sentiment firmly in mind I'd like to propose the following thought experiment:  Imagine it's 2115 and the second coming hasn't happened. Most likely technology will continue to advance and society will adapted and reacted accordingly. Advances in robotics, bioengineering, cybernetics, networking, virtual reality, longevity medicine, space exploration, and a changing geo-political landscape are sure to influence everyone; including us Mormons. So... What does being a Mormon look like?

 

Note: I do not want to this to turn in to a wish-list of how people WANT the Church to change to accommodate anyone's particular pet agenda. I'd love to hear your honest best guesses as to how the Church will respond to/fit in/push back against what will (may) happen in the next 100 years. 

Before adding any comments to this thread, I decided to wait to see if anyone at all would refer to the large body of scriptural prophecies pertaining the future destiny of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But unless I missed something, all we've gotten thus far are conjectures and suppositions without any references at all to the more sure prophetic word contained in the Standard Works. And just in case some here don't recall, the scriptural prophecies I refer to point to a wonderfully successful and triumphant Restored Church of Christ -- a Church who's core members will remain loyal and steadfast (except for the 'tares') in upholding the truth of God even in the face of great pressure and opposition. I'd normally be inclined to share some of these hope-inspiring prophecies, but since it seems making wild and unfounded predictions about the future of the Church is a lot more "fun" than holding fast to the iron rod, I'll go to bed.

Edited November 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[USU78]

So I guess you have no problem with Pahoran , Mola Ram, USU78 and Rodheadlee completely distorting what I and others in ghe "gay team" have stated over and over again????    

 

Whatever.  I am pretty used to it by now.

 

That's pretty nice company to be in.

 

9 ¶The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.

 

Nobody much minds that others sin . . . all sin.

 

It's this notion that a public declaration must be made that one is to be defined thenceforth by that sin, and that if anyone declare that sin a sin, he is to be removed from public discourse, made a financial nonentity, prevented from public or any other employment, and re-educated.

 

Just be honest, and few would have a problem.

 

Re-defining words and inventing bogus behavioral taxonomies for marketing purposes is just lying.

 

Just be honest.

[USU78]

The "majority of religions?" You may be right, if and only if you count each unaffiliated congregation as a separate "religion."

But here's my take: the surrendering churches -- however they rationalise their surrender -- will continue to languish; while all real Christians, without exception, will prefer to please God rather than men.

 

So it's "surrender to the gay jihad or lose your livelihood." Thank you for admitting this. Most of your fellow "gays" are not so forthcoming.

 

A situation which the framers of those laws never contemplated. But hey -- why should that matter as long as you are getting your own way?

 

So it's "surrender to the gay jihad or lose your livelihood." Thank you for admitting this. Most of your fellow "gays" are not so forthcoming.

And "gay rights" will ultimately be defined as "The right to compel any person to actively support your relationship du jour, despite any valid principle-based objections they may have."

And neither you nor any other "gay" agitator will have a problem with that.

 

I regret that you are consciously misrepresenting the facts.

I challenge you to produce even one Church member who has proposed any sort of "sexual orientation" test for Temple blessings.

There are none.

Here is your prediction, reworded so that it is actually truthful this time.

"There may be a minor schism the membership. Some believing that unrepentant reprobates deserve the blessings of temple marriage, and those who believe that those blessings belong to the repentant."

 

Some may. If they do, it's because they've left already in all but name.

 

Make no mistake: the Church will stand firm on this matter, even if we end up standing alone.

 

And in the meantime, the "gay" agigators will continue to chip away at the rights of decent people to uphold decency in all aspects of their lives; and every time true freedom is forced to retreat another step closer to the doors of the Temple, the "gay" propagandists will continue to use a combination of soothing phony assurances and bitter invective in order to lull people into a false sense of security.

 

This is called being "ripe in iniquity."

Regards,

Pahoran

 

We have  had enough of recycled bashing on this topic. Both of you will be thread banned or the thread closed if it erupts again.

 

Why even allow the subject, then?

 

I am so confused these days on what is and what ain't permitted here.

[JLHPROF]

Before adding any comments to this thread, I decided to wait to see if anyone at all would refer to the large body of scriptural prophecies pertaining the future destiny of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But unless I missed something, all we've gotten thus far are conjectures and suppositions without any references at all to the more sure prophetic word contained in the Standard Works. And just in case some here don't recall, the scriptural prophecies I refer to point to a wonderfully successful and triumphant Restored Church of Christ -- a Church who's core members will remain loyal and steadfast (except for the 'tares') in upholding the truth of God even in the face of great pressure and opposition.

 

Well, since the OP asked for predictions if the Second Coming didn't happen in the next 100 years, why would we refer to established prophecy?  Or did you read the OP?

 

 

I'd normally be inclined to share some of these hope-inspiring prophecies, but since it seems making wild and unfounded predictions about the future of the Church is a lot more "fun" than holding fast to the iron rod, I'll go to bed.

 

Maybe because that's what the OP asked for?  Don't get all preachy on us for responding with speculation as requested.

If you want a thread on established scriptural prophecy go ahead and start one.  This isn't it.  This is the thread for what might the Church look like if Christ doesn't come back soon.

[JLHPROF]

I see mainstreaming of the Church to be nothing more than an attempt to appease the mocking masses in the great and spacious building.  I rather be in a church that sticks to its guns and only get 10 convert baptisms a year than dilutes its positions to get 5 milllion a year.  Noah was a great missionary. He taught the people the truth.  The fact that nobody accepted his teaching does not mean he was a poor missionary.  It means that the people were wrong.  In the end, Noah won and the people who rejected his hard truths lost.  I would like to see the Church stop giving an yearly statistiic of how many people join the church.  It does not matter.  A missionary that teaches a 1000 people the gospel and gets one covert is just as successful as one that teaches a 1000 people and gets 500 converts.

 

Do you think that's the Church we have or do you think we have taken some wrong steps?  Because I can't quite tell from your posts.

Are we mainstreaming and adjusting doctrines to ease ridicule and increase conversion?  Or are we sticking to our doctrinal guns no matter what the world thinks?

[The Nehor]

Before adding any comments to this thread, I decided to wait to see if anyone at all would refer to the large body of scriptural prophecies pertaining the future destiny of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But unless I missed something, all we've gotten thus far are conjectures and suppositions without any references at all to the more sure prophetic word contained in the Standard Works. And just in case some here don't recall, the scriptural prophecies I refer to point to a wonderfully successful and triumphant Restored Church of Christ -- a Church who's core members will remain loyal and steadfast (except for the 'tares') in upholding the truth of God even in the face of great pressure and opposition. I'd normally be inclined to share some of these hope-inspiring prophecies, but since it seems making wild and unfounded predictions about the future of the Church is a lot more "fun" than holding fast to the iron rod, I'll go to bed.

Actually the prophecies refer to the elect being deceived, a scourge being poured out starting on the Church, and men's hearts failing them saying the Savior has delayed too long.

But I suppose it is more fun to smugly assert one's superiority and beat your chest to show your own faithfulness then to actually participate so I will go to bed......well, not really. It is only the afternoon.

[The Nehor]

I remember the same thing being widely taught.  People getting their patriarchal blessings saying they would live to see the second coming, the whole Saturdays Warrior thing.  My seminary figured out some dating system that put the second coming as 1982.  Of course every generation speculated that Christ was coming any moment.  Nothing new about that.  Even the apostles during the time of Christ thought he was returning shortly.

My grandfather told me that as a child he was taught the same thing. I do think each generation is getting stronger. The missionaries out now are stronger then I and those I served with were not so long ago. The youth are stronger then I and my generation were. Hopefully this trend will continue.

[SmileyMcGee]

I see mainstreaming of the Church to be nothing more than an attempt to appease the mocking masses in the great and spacious building. I rather be in a church that sticks to its guns and only get 10 convert baptisms a year than dilutes its positions to get 5 milllion a year. Noah was a great missionary. He taught the people the truth. The fact that nobody accepted his teaching does not mean he was a poor missionary. It means that the people were wrong. In the end, Noah won and the people who rejected his hard truths lost. I would like to see the Church stop giving an yearly statistiic of how many people join the church. It does not matter. A missionary that teaches a 1000 people the gospel and gets one covert is just as successful as one that teaches a 1000 people and gets 500 converts.

You're preaching to someone who is very fascinated by but not invested in the church.

[teddyaware]

Actually the prophecies refer to the elect being deceived, a scourge being poured out starting on the Church, and men's hearts failing them saying the Savior has delayed too long.

But I suppose it is more fun to smugly assert one's superiority and beat your chest to show your own faithfulness then to actually participate so I will go to bed......well, not really. It is only the afternoon.

Absolute hogwash. In attempt to score points, you seem to deliberately twist the word of God

 

First, the prophecy of Christ that speaks of the possibility of the elect being deceived by false Christs, false signs and false wonders is quickly followed in the very same chapter of Joseph Smith--Matthew by the following prophecy:

37 And whoso treasureth up my word, SHALL NOT BE DECEIVED for the Son of Man shall come, and he shall send his angels before him with the great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together the remainder of his elect (who remain faithful) from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

38 Now learn a parable of the fig tree—When its branches are yet tender, and it begins to put forth leaves, you know that summer is nigh at hand;

39 So likewise, mine elect, when they shall see all these things, they shall know that he is near, even at the doors; (Joseph Smith--Matthew)

 

So the elect who hold fast to the iron rod of the word of God, and who eschew wild conjectures and non-scriptural nonsense will not be deceived. And if you will recall, in my post I did speak of the "tares" within in the Church who will grow alongside the faithful, and it is these tares who are far more likely to be the ones who will be deceived and numbered among the wicked.

Next, the scourge you speak of is found in Doctrine and Covenants section 45. In this section, we are told the desolating scourge spoken of is a sickness that will be poured out upon the wicked. In the meantime, the righteous who remain faithful and who are not deceived will be protected as they resolutely stand in holy places while the Lord sends His judgments upon the wicked:

31 And there shall be men standing in that generation, that shall not pass until they shall see an overflowing scourge; for a desolating sickness shall cover the land.

32 But my disciples shall stand in holy places, and shall not be moved; but among the wicked, men shall lift up their voices and curse God and die. (D&C 45)

 

Finally, Doctrine and Covenants 45 tells us it is the wicked who's hearts will fail them, and this because they know not the signs to look for that will herald the coming of Christ  (this will most likely be the case because they do not hold fast to the iron rod). Meanwhile, the saints who know God's word will not fail in heart because they are thoroughly acquainted with and know how to follow the true signs of the Lord's coming...

39 And it shall come to pass that he that feareth me shall be looking forth for the great day of the Lord to come, even for the signs of the coming of the Son of Man.

40 And they shall see signs and wonders, for they shall be shown forth in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath.

41 And they shall behold blood, and fire, and vapors of smoke.

42 And before the day of the Lord shall come, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon be turned into blood, and the stars fall from heaven.

43 And the remnant shall be gathered unto this place;

44 And then they shall look for me, and, behold, I will come; and they shall see me in the clouds of heaven, clothed with power and great glory; with all the holy angels; and he that watches not for me shall be cut off. (D&C 45)

 

So the hearts of those who hold fast to the iron rod and who hold fast with both hands to the good ship Zion will not loose heart but will lift up their hearts and rejoice.

35 And I said unto them: Be not troubled, for, when all these things shall come to pass, ye may know that the promises which have been made unto you shall be fulfilled. (D&C 45)

Edited November 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[rodheadlee]

So I guess you have no problem with Pahoran , Mola Ram, USU78 and Rodheadlee completely distorting what I and others in ghe "gay team" have stated over and over again????    

 

Whatever.  I am pretty used to it by now.

What did I distort?

[The Nehor]

Absolute hogwash. In attempt to score points, you seem to deliberately twist the word of God.

No, I just said you were oversimplifying and being sanctimonious and condescending while doing so.

[teddyaware]

No, I just said you were oversimplifying and being sanctimonious and condescending while doing so.

Well heaven forbid that any participant on this board (like you, for instance) would deliberately play the role of a wisenheimer in order to more effectively put a point across.

[The Nehor]

Well heaven forbid that any participant on this board (like you, for instance) would deliberately play the role of a wisenheimer in order to more effectively put a point across.

I do not forbid it. I just forbid anyone but myself from doing so. If others mimic me I will lose job security.

And that is not what you were doing in any case.

[teddyaware]

I do not forbid it. I just forbid anyone but myself from doing so. If others mimic me I will lose job security.

And that is not what you were doing in any case.

I was indeed being playful when I wrote the post in question, deliberately trying to see if I could get a rise out of somebody, and it seems I succeeded. But God forbid that anybody but the infamous Nehor should play the role of board curmudgeon.

[The Nehor]

But God forbid that anybody but the infamous Nehor should play the role of board curmudgeon.

 

I do hope God forbids it. Again, job security.

[LinuxGal]

Yes. I remember reading somewhere that the Saints at the time of the organization of the LDS church were under a similar impression- that the Saviors return was imminent.

 

Even Paul was under that impression:

 

"But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away."