The Mormon church in the end times.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

I want Hawaii.

Sorry, I already called dibs.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

You know the predominant tribe, where will they be living? 

You are about to take this far  beyond what the Church does under current theology where we are to gather where we already are....long after the diaspora messed up those bloodlines.  

Perhaps these two excerpts from Apostle Bruce R McConkie's 'The Millennial Messiah' will help to clarify things for you.

"What, then, is meant by the leading of the Ten Tribes from the land of the north? Our answer is: Just what the words say. We are gathering Israel now in all nations and counseling them to stay where they are, there to enlarge the borders of Zion, there to build up stakes of Zion in their own lands and among their own people. But with the Ten Tribes, in part at least, it will be another thing. They are destined to return (at least in large and representative numbers) to the same soil where the feet of their forebears walked during the days of their mortal pilgrimage. They are to return to Palestine. At least a constituent assembly will congregate there in the very land given of God to Abraham their father. Others will, of course, be in America and in all lands, but the formal return, the return from the north countries, will be to the land of their ancient inheritance. . 

Thus it is that we see why the revelations speak of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth into the Church and kingdom of God on earth, and also of the leading of the Ten Tribes from the land of the north back again to their promised Canaan. The gathering of Israel is one thing, the return of the Ten Tribes to a specified place is another; and Moses gave to men in our day the keys and power to perform both labors. This means that Israel is gathered at the direction and pursuant to the power and authority vested in the legal administrators who preside over The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And it also means that the Ten Tribes -- scattered, lost, unknown, and now in all the nations of the earth -- these Ten Tribes, with their prophets, with their scriptures, in faith and desiring righteousness, shall return to blessed Canaan at the direction of these same legal administrators. The President of the Church is the only person on earth at any given time who does or can exercise these or any other priesthood keys in their eternal fulness. He will direct the return of the Ten Tribes. It will not come to pass in any other way. . . ." (The Millennial Messiah)

[smac97]

6 hours ago, snowflake said:

Hello all,

I have recently been doing a bible study on the end times and prophecy, specifically Daniel, Revelation and Matthew chapter 24.

Despite the "end times" flavor of the Church's name ("Latter-day Saints"), the Church takes a fairly different tack to this topic, at least as compared to the doom-n-gloom endtimers on the fringes of Protestantism.  That is, we are preparing for the Millennium, but we do so through temple work and provident living efforts.

6 hours ago, snowflake said:

What is the LDS take on Israel and the end times: Specifically, has the LDS church replaced Israel in the book of Revelation (sometimes called replacement theology)?

"Replacement Theology," also called "Supersessionism" or "Fulfillment Theology," is described as "a Christian theological view on the current status of the church in relation to the Jewish people and Judaism" in which "the Christian Church has succeeded the Israelites as the definitive people of God or that the New Covenant has replaced or superseded the Mosaic covenant."  Notably, Wikipedia indicates that "{t}he Latter Day Saint movement rejects supersessionism."  The footnote points to a news article, which in turn quotes 3 Nephi 29 (emphases added):

Quote

1 And now behold, I say unto you that when the Lord shall see fit, in his wisdom, that these sayings shall come unto the Gentiles according to his word, then ye may know that the covenant which the Father hath made with the children of Israel, concerning their restoration to the lands of their inheritance, is already beginning to be fulfilled.

2 And ye may know that the words of the Lord, which have been spoken by the holy prophets, shall all be fulfilled; and ye need not say that the Lord delays his coming unto the children of Israel.

3 And ye need not imagine in your hearts that the words which have been spoken are vain, for behold, the Lord will remember his covenant which he hath made unto his people of the house of Israel.

...

8 Yea, and ye need not any longer hiss, nor spurn, nor make game of the Jews, nor any of the remnant of the house of Israel; for behold, the Lord remembereth his covenant unto them, and he will do unto them according to that which he hath sworn.

I think it is difficult, probably impossible, to square "Replacement Theology" with the above verses.

6 hours ago, snowflake said:

Or is the LDS take that Israel and the church have become the same? 

In some ways, yes.  I think this Encyclopedia of Mormonism article sums things up well:

Quote

For two major reasons, Latter-day Saints today apply the name Israel to themselves. First, Moses appeared to Joseph Smith, and Oliver Cowdery in the Kirtland Temple on April 3, 1836, and conferred on them the keys, or authorization, for "the gathering of Israel" (D&C 110:11; cf. PWJS, pp. 145-46). This gathering consists not only in restoring people of Israelite ancestry "to the lands of their inheritance" but also in bringing them "out of obscurity and out of darkness; and they shall know that the Lord is…the Mighty One of Israel" (1 Ne. 22:12). This action means bringing them into the Church.

Second, Latter-day Saints have often learned from their patriarchal blessings that they are literally of the lineage of Israel (D&C 86:8-9), primarily the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. The Lord has revealed that it is the particular responsibility of Israel to carry the message of the restored gospel to the world, and Ephraim has the responsibility of directing this work (D&C 133:26-34; cf. TPJS, p. 163). Those who are not of Israel's lineage become such through adoption at the time of their baptism and reception of the Holy Ghost (TPJS, pp. 149-50; Rom. 8:15-17; Gal. 4:5-7; Abr. 2:10; see also Law of Adoption).

That sounds about right.

6 hours ago, snowflake said:

Just trying to understand how the LDS church fits into the book of Revelation. Thanks.

I recommend you look at the chapters in the Gospel Principles manual regarding this topic (chapters 42-47 seem generally pertinent).  You could also look at chapters 53-56 of the Church's New Testament Student Manual (which pertain to the Book of Revelation).

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Perhaps these two excerpts from Apostle Bruce R McConkie's 'The Millennial Messiah' will help to clarify things for you.

"What, then, is meant by the leading of the Ten Tribes from the land of the north? Our answer is: Just what the words say. We are gathering Israel now in all nations and counseling them to stay where they are, there to enlarge the borders of Zion, there to build up stakes of Zion in their own lands and among their own people. But with the Ten Tribes, in part at least, it will be another thing. They are destined to return (at least in large and representative numbers) to the same soil where the feet of their forebears walked during the days of their mortal pilgrimage. They are to return to Palestine. At least a constituent assembly will congregate there in the very land given of God to Abraham their father. Others will, of course, be in America and in all lands, but the formal return, the return from the north countries, will be to the land of their ancient inheritance. . 

Thus it is that we see why the revelations speak of the gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth into the Church and kingdom of God on earth, and also of the leading of the Ten Tribes from the land of the north back again to their promised Canaan. The gathering of Israel is one thing, the return of the Ten Tribes to a specified place is another; and Moses gave to men in our day the keys and power to perform both labors. This means that Israel is gathered at the direction and pursuant to the power and authority vested in the legal administrators who preside over The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And it also means that the Ten Tribes -- scattered, lost, unknown, and now in all the nations of the earth -- these Ten Tribes, with their prophets, with their scriptures, in faith and desiring righteousness, shall return to blessed Canaan at the direction of these same legal administrators. The President of the Church is the only person on earth at any given time who does or can exercise these or any other priesthood keys in their eternal fulness. He will direct the return of the Ten Tribes. It will not come to pass in any other way. . . ." (The Millennial Messiah)

Now quote something official and from the current century.

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

Now quote something official and from the current century.

If the Church really has retreated from belief in the "literal gathering of Israel and . . . the restoration of the ten tribes," then that is sad for the Church. It wouldn't change my faith in what the prophets have taught one whit. 

I think you're correct, juliann, that the Brethren for a few decades have really downplayed a lot of the "weird" elements of what the Brethren have taught, and I think this harms the faith they are trying to protect in some cases. I think this creates phenomena like Denver Snuffer --- his followers are mainly people who yearn for the less corporate and PR-safe Church they used to know. 

I don't de-emphasize things like this, and I testify about the things I know and verily believe, but this makes many in the PR or apologetic set uncomfortable --- because it embarrasses them. In 1994, Elder Wirthlin told missionaries in the Germany Hamburg Mission that John the Revelator had played a key role in the fall of Communism and the opening up of Eastern Europe and Russia for the spreading of the gospel. I can't see any apostle making a statement like that today --- it would seem "weird."

[clarkgoble]

47 minutes ago, juliann said:

Now quote something official and from the current century.

While some of McConkie's speculations on the last days are just that, speculation, the above seems pretty mainstream and largely is just paraphrasing scripture.

What in that do you find so controversial? The gathering of the lost ten tribes? I've no idea where they are but it's probably a situation akin to how the typical native American is related to Lehi. We wouldn't recognize them as Israel if we saw them. So almost certainly they're some group out there right now that will fulfill some purpose in the future. It's not even clear that we'd recognize them as the ten tribes prior to the second coming. For all I know he's speaking of people from Afghanistan or Iran who in some decade or century in the future align with Israel in some way. That seems unthinkable now but anyone looking at the sweep of history the past century sees that things shift quickly.

Edited March 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

I want Hawaii.

Beats the heck out of Missouri.

[Ahab]

When I think of the world area north of the continent of Africa, particularly the NE region of Africa where Abraham and Israel later settled, I think of Russia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Russia

[clarkgoble]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

If the Church really has retreated from belief in the "literal gathering of Israel and . . . the restoration of the ten tribes," then that is sad for the Church. It wouldn't change my faith in what the prophets have taught one whit. 

I think you're correct, juliann, that the Brethren for a few decades have really downplayed a lot of the "weird" elements of what the Brethren have taught, and I think this harms the faith they are trying to protect in some cases. I think this creates phenomena like Denver Snuffer --- his followers are mainly people who yearn for the less corporate and PR-safe Church they used to know. 

I don't de-emphasize things like this, and I testify about the things I know and verily believe, but this makes many in the PR or apologetic set uncomfortable --- because it embarrasses them. In 1994, Elder Wirthlin told missionaries in the Germany Hamburg Mission that John the Revelator had played a key role in the fall of Communism and the opening up of Eastern Europe and Russia for the spreading of the gospel. I can't see any apostle making a statement like that today --- it would seem "weird."

What they say in public is a little less open than what they say in smaller groups. I think it's wise to worry about weirdness. But I think they also worry tremendously about people hinging on every word they say. I recall a fireside I was at where Elder Eyring was speaking and he mentioned that and in particular the problem of people repeating on Facebook what gets said in meetings (often incorrectly). Even Pres. Hinkley who really started that process of paying more attention to PR would speak pretty openly depending upon the audience. So the same guy who backed off somewhat to Time Magazine over deification spoke at a Saturday session of Stake Conference for an hour on making your calling and election sure as tied to deification. (Pre-internet)

Talk of gifts, visions and so forth tend to get spoken of more when there's a certain trust in the audience and their ability to keep sacred things sacred. And of course even when they say something sometimes that is just speculation. So I don't know why, for instance, Elder Wirthlin thought John was involved. There's of course a tradition that John and the three Nephites walk the earth doing various things. It's a popular Mormon folklore. How you'd know who was John tends to be trickier.

To the second coming, there's definitely been a backing off since 9/11 on last days talks. Especially compared to when I was a kind in the cold war. There really was a sense in the cold war that the end of the world could happen at any moment. But I think a bigger problem was that eschatological concerns were starting to get a tad out of hand in the aftermath of 9/11. While it's just a guess, I suspect Pres. Hinkley was impressed to back things off because many members were going astray. And when you go astray more than the days when Mad Max seemed like it could happen any day, that's saying a lot. But look at all the craziness going on the past decade. He probably was right. 

 

Edited March 28, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Beats the heck out of Missouri.

What makes Jerusalem attractive as Zion? What are the geographical, climatic, recreational potential, and scenic requirements for Zion? Zion is a place that is consecrated for the home of the pure in heart. Is there something that would disqualify Missouri?

Quote

Why do we spend all of this time talking about temples when we are learning about the early saints reaching an inhospitable desert and turning it into the Garden of the Lord?  I have focused on temples, temple building and temple worship because the blessings of temples are synonymous with life, posterity and prosperity.  Temples and temple blessings are the very essence of turning desert places into vibrant gardens.  Indeed, the first “temple” was the Garden of Eden and deserts typify the lone and dreary world.  Only by returning to “the Garden of Eden” or the Temple are the effects of the lone and dreary desert reversed and then truly the rose does bloom.  Such was the effect of temple covenants, temple blessings and temple building upon the early saints in the Great Basin Kingdom.

As we make the temple the center of our lives then like the early saints our personal deserts will receive living water and roses will bloom naturally where before thorns, thistles and briars encumbered our lives.

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/the-desert-shall-rejoice-and-blossom-as-the-rose/

Edited March 29, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

What makes Jerusalem attractive as Zion? What are the geographical, climatic, recreational potential, and scenic requirements for Zion?

Zion is the entire American continent... north. central and south.

What we're talking about here is where the headquarters for the Church on the American continent should be. It is now in the desert state of Utah. Missouri has better soil and a lot more greenery.

[Bobbieaware]

3 hours ago, juliann said:

Now quote something official and from the current century.

It must be quite trying to belong to a Church that so unapologetically teaches God is a God of mighty miracles (think of the instantaneous literal resurrection of billions of human beings whose bodies crumbled to powder thousands of years ago) while simultaneously gravely doubting the same almighty God is capable of fulfilling promises he's made that would be quite easy for a being of infinite and eternal power to fulfill. 

Though I now see it likely won't help, here is one excerpt from among the many passages in the Book of Mormon that support Apostle McConkie's belief that the tribes of Israel will eventually be literally restored to the lands of their promised inheritance.

5 But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him, that he be crucified.

6 Wherefore, because of their iniquities, destructions, famines, pestilences, and bloodshed shall come upon them; and they who shall not be destroyed shall be scattered among all nations.

7 But behold, thus saith the Lord God: When the day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ, then have I covenanted with their fathers that they shall be restored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance.

8 And it shall come to pass that they shall be gathered in from their long dispersion, from the isles of the sea, and from the four parts of the earth; and the nations of the Gentiles shall be great in the eyes of me, saith God, in carrying them forth to the lands of their inheritance. (2 Nephi 10)

Edited March 29, 2017 by Bobbieaware

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Zion is the entire American continent... north. central and south.

What we're talking about here is where the headquarters for the Church on the American continent should be. It is now in the desert state of Utah. Missouri has better soil and a lot more greenery.

But Missouri has chiggers. https://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2000/06/got-chiggers-it-figures

My point is that why should Jackson County embarrass the Church as the center place of Zion when the time comes? 
The Jews have made Israel bloom, the Saints made the Utah desert bloom, maybe something good can be done with Missouri.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

Zion is the entire American continent... north. central and south.

What we're talking about here is where the headquarters for the Church on the American continent should be. It is now in the desert state of Utah. Missouri has better soil and a lot more greenery.

It also has a lot more meth.

[rongo]

14 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

So I don't know why, for instance, Elder Wirthlin thought John was involved. There's of course a tradition that John and the three Nephites walk the earth doing various things. It's a popular Mormon folklore. How you'd know who was John tends to be trickier.

Maybe they've actually talked to John (and other translated people) and he wasn't just speculating or engaging in folklore of the "roadside assistance" variety. I know that's crazy talk today, even for many active modern Mormons. Most kind of pat you on the head and say, "That's adorable!" (figuratively). Most modern Mormons believe in the ministering of angels as long as it's safely in the distant past (the beginnings and pioneer era), but act like God has done his work and such things are not needed any more. In this regard, we are becoming more and more like sectarian Christianity, who explain away the lack of spiritual gifts and visitations as necessary things in the distant past, but not in the enlightened modern age.

[snowflake]

Thank you all for your responses, much appreciated! A new question regarding the end times. Jesus in Matthew 24 said:
 

[14] And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
[15] When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
[16] Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
[17] Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
[18] Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
[19] And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
[20] But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
[21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
[22] And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Daniel 9: 2

[27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

Many biblical scholars say that the Jewish temple must be rebuilt for someone to see the abomination of desolation.  The Jews in Jerusalem are ready now to rebuild the temple. https://www.templeinstitute.org/ From what I understand the 70th week of Daniel will be right before Christ's return, (called the day of the Lord). And that an idol or image or unclean sacrifice or something totally offensive to God and the Jewish people (called the abomination of desolation) has to be put in the holy place of the temple.  

What's the LDS take on the 70th week of Daniel, and do they believe in the rapture of the church? Taught in 1 Thesselonians 4

 [14] For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
[15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
[16] For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
[17] Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
[18] Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

Most modern Mormons believe in the ministering of angels as long as it's safely in the distant past (the beginnings and pioneer era), but act like God has done his work and such things are not needed any more.

I'm not sure that's true although it is true of a certain vocal group of often theologically liberal Mormons. But I'm very skeptical they represent anything but a minority.

[Robert F. Smith]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Despite the "end times" flavor of the Church's name ("Latter-day Saints"), the Church takes a fairly different tack to this topic, at least as compared to the doom-n-gloom endtimers on the fringes of Protestantism.  That is, we are preparing for the Millennium, but we do so through temple work and provident living efforts.

............................................................   

That is indeed one aspect of the end-time for us, Spencer, but there is actually much more that has taken place and even more in the offing:

For example, despite Elder McConkie's unofficial claim that everything (including the gathering of the Jews to Palestine) will take place under the direction of the LDS First Presidency, a good deal of what happens seems to be out of Mormon hands.  I tend to think that matters were set in motion formally with the dedication by Apostle Orson Hyde in 1841 of the Holy Land to the gathering of the Jews and the rebuilding of their temple at Jerusalem.  Consequently, the Jews have been rapidly gathering now for over a century to Palestine without paying much attention to Mormon claims.  They certainly are not taking direction from SLC.

The end-time scenario for the Jews contained in Zechariah and specified in the D&C is anything but a peaceful scene of temple endowment sessions -- the Jews oblivious to the full implications till the very end:

D&C 45:47 Then shall the arm of the Lord fall upon the nations.
48 And then shall the Lord set his foot upon this mount, and it shall cleave in twain, [Mount of Olives, Zech 14:4, D&C 133:20-37] and the earth shall tremble, and reel to and fro, and the heavens also shall shake.
49 And the Lord shall utter his voice, and all the ends of the earth shall hear it; and the nations of the earth shall mourn, and they that have laughed shall see their folly.
50 And calamity shall cover the mocker, and the scorner shall be consumed; and they that have watched for iniquity shall be hewn down and cast into the fire.
51 And then shall the Jews look upon me and say: What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet?
52 Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. [Zech 13:6] I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God.
53 And then shall they weep because of their iniquities; then shall they lament because they persecuted their king.

[probablyHagoth7]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

What's the LDS take on the 70th week of Daniel, and do they believe in the rapture of the church?

The closest thing to an LDS take that I have found was the BYU study manual for the OT...

...which simply offered the general guidance that Daniel 9 provides a timeline for Jesus' mortal ministry.

It is reasonable and fair that the Jews would have such a prophetic baseline for preparation, since the Nephites had something similar from Lehi's 600-year prophecy. Gabriel revealed the timeline to Daniel...and Gabriel later returned to announce to both Mary and John the Baptist's father that the time foretold was finally at hand. Just as Jesus started his ministry saying the same thing. If not Gabriel's time, then whose?

As to Daniel 9 and the 70 weeks, there is good cause to believe:

• That the 70 weeks (of years) were fulfilled in the 1st century AD.
• That Jesus' mortal ministry began at the beginning of the 70th week (of years).
• That after 3+ years of ministry, Jesus was 'cut off' or slain "in the midst" of that 70th week (of years)...per Daniel 9 and its counterpart in Isaiah 53.

• That the widespread claim for a future 70th week is therefore an errant distraction from the actual fulfillment of prophecy.
• Because exactly 490 years (70 sevens, or 70 weeks of years) passed between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (in Ezra 7) and 34 AD.** 

If interested, there's further response to the claim of a detached 70th week here.

Thoughts?

** As a personal belief, I accept the Adventist assertion that the death of the first Christian martyr (Stephen) marked the end of the 70th week (of years) in 34 AD.

Edited March 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[snowflake]

49 minutes ago, probablyHagoth7 said:

The closest thing to an LDS take that I have found was the BYU study manual for the OT...

...which simply offered the general guidance that Daniel 9 provides a timeline for Jesus' mortal ministry.

It is reasonable and fair that the Jews would have such a prophetic baseline for preparation, since the Nephites had something similar from Lehi's 600-year prophecy. Gabriel revealed the timeline to Daniel...and Gabriel later returned to announce to both Mary and John the Baptist's father that the time foretold was finally at hand. Just as Jesus started his ministry saying the same thing. If not Gabriel's time, then whose?

As to Daniel 9 and the 70 weeks, there is good cause to believe:

• That the 70 weeks (of years) were fulfilled in the 1st century AD.
• That Jesus' mortal ministry began at the beginning of the 70th week (of years).
• That after 3+ years of ministry, Jesus was 'cut off' or slain "in the midst" of that 70th week (of years)...per Daniel 9 and its counterpart in Isaiah 53.

• That the widespread claim for a future 70th week is therefore an errant distraction from the actual fulfillment of prophecy.
• Because exactly 490 years (70 sevens, or 70 weeks of years) passed between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (in Ezra 7) and 34 AD.** 

If interested, there's further response to the claim of a detached 70th week here.

Thoughts?

** As a personal belief, I accept the Adventist assertion that the death of the first Christian martyr (Stephen) marked the end of the 70th week (of years) in 34 AD.

Yeah I see where you are coming from, I would agree that the span from the decree to return and rebuild the city of Jerusalem in Ezra 7 is the correct timeline. However in Daniel 9: The messiah was cut off after 69 weeks. But Jesus seems to be alluding to the end times. Clearly 2000 years ago were not the end times.  It is my understanding that the 70th week prophecy was not fulfilled when the temple was destroyed in 70.a.d. so it must take place in the future. I believe that all eyes should be on the country of Israel (and the Jews God's chosen people) for the end times scenario to take place. Thoughts?

 [26] And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
[27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

[probablyHagoth7]

27 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Yeah I see where you are coming from, I would agree that the span from the decree to return and rebuild the city of Jerusalem in Ezra 7 is the correct timeline. However in Daniel 9: The messiah was cut off after 69 weeks....Thoughts?

 [26] And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
[27] And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

My thoughts:

First, we are agreed that the Messiah was cut off at some point after 69 weeks (verse 26).

Second, immediately after that verse, Daniel enlightens us more precisely about what was meant *when* this pivotal post-69-week event would happen. Were are told more specifically in verse 27 that He would be cut off/sacrificed "in the midst of the [final 70th] week", which is after the 69 weeks. (And, 3+ years after his ministry began, per the NT, he delivered himself up to lesser men.) And, as promised, His sacrifice in the middle of that last 70th week of years thereby ended the need for OT animal sacrifices and oblations (verse 27).

Thus at least the first half of that 70th week of years was fulfilled through Christ's mortal ministry.

Which strongly suggests that latter half of that 70th week of years, followed suit, *to confirm the covenant.* 

Jerusalem was declared to already be desolate at the sunset of His mortal ministry, with the city's ongoing rejection of Him. Thereby fulfilling that portion of verse 27. So I believe the war-driven desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD falls beyond the 70-week window, even though it was a later physical consequence of an earlier observed spiritual state.

Thoughts?

Also, any feedback on that chapter I linked to that offered a bit more perspective regarding the 70th week?

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Garden Girl]

17 hours ago, Ahab said:

Zion is the entire American continent... north. central and south.

What we're talking about here is where the headquarters for the Church on the American continent should be. It is now in the desert state of Utah. Missouri has better soil and a lot more greenery.

And horrendous humidity in summer months... I could never live there... the Pacific Northwest, i.e., Oregon coast is just right... mild summers, no snow shoveling in winter, etc.  We do get snow down to the waves about every couple years... it is gone in a day or so, then back to normal.

GG

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

And horrendous humidity in summer months... I could never live there... the Pacific Northwest, i.e., Oregon coast is just right... mild summers, no snow shoveling in winter, etc.  We do get snow down to the waves about every couple years... it is gone in a day or so, then back to normal.

GG

I live in SW Washington and I like it here, too. Our place is about 1500' up in the Cascade foothills, and we do get some snow that I need to either shovel or blade out of the driveway with my quad, but the amount of rain we get is not for everyone. But yes I like that we don't have unbearable humidity here and would rather live in a desert than have that.

So the world would need to have some mighty changes, weather wise, before I would even consider moving to Missouri. And since the Church already has a nice setup in Salt Lake City and the surrounding area, I think it should just stay there.

[probablyHagoth7]

27 minutes ago, Garden Girl said:

And horrendous humidity in summer months... I could never live there... the Pacific Northwest, i.e., Oregon coast is just right... mild summers, no snow shoveling in winter, etc.  

Oregon coast is an amazing place.

Had a friend from Oregon, who used to frequently joke that if Brigham had not been ill, he would not have stopped in Salt Lake Valley, but would have continued on to Oregon.

:::pondering how to tie that response back into the OP:::

Edited March 29, 2017 by probablyHagoth7

[Garden Girl]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I live in SW Washington and I like it here, too. Our place is about 1500' up in the Cascade foothills, and we do get some snow that I need to either shovel or blade out of the driveway with my quad, but the amount of rain we get is not for everyone. But yes I like that we don't have unbearable humidity here and would rather live in a desert than have that.

So the world would need to have some mighty changes, weather wise, before I would even consider moving to Missouri. And since the Church already has a nice setup in Salt Lake City and the surrounding area, I think it should just stay there.

Ah yes... the rain... I was just bemoaning yet another day of rain when I got up this morning... this makes about two weeks of gray, damp days.  So coastal Oregon is not for everyone either... When I wake up, I can hear the rain on the skylight and sometimes want just to snuggle down... but Bob (the Cat) won't stand for that because he wants me to get up and feed him... and he's relentless, so I stumble down the hallway after him... and so the day begins.

GG