President Nelson and AoF 10

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, cinepro said:

We're all going to pay for it one way or the other.

I'm not!

/mumbles something about Americocentrism .../

[The Nehor]

45 minutes ago, longview said:

No worry.  Mexico will pay for it one way or the other.

No, they won’t.

These are the kinds of campaign promises you can expect when your candidate is mentally subnormal and judges whether a campaign promise is good based on the volume of enthusiasm for it from a gaggle of idiots at a rally. Then afterwards he whines on the phone to the Mexicans to stop bringing it up and insulting his idiocy. He should have promised he would destroy the galaxy of Andromeda while he was at it. It is probably equally likely he would succeed.

Edited September 5, 2018 by The Nehor

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Well, literal gathering will be hard for a while due to immigration laws. And what with the ‘big beautiful wall’ budget fight coming up......ehhh....it can wait for a bit.

When one lives in reasonable proximity to a stake of Zion, immigration laws have no bearing whatever on gathering to Zion, be it spiritual, literal or figurative. 

We have to discard this notion that gathering to Zion means everyone coming to Utah or the United States or Jackson County, Missouri. That is 19th century thinking. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When one lives in reasonable proximity to a stake of Zion, immigration laws have no bearing whatever on gathering to Zion, be it spiritual, literal or figurative. 

We have to discard this notion that gathering to Zion means everyone coming to Utah or the United States or Jackson County, Missouri. That is 19th century thinking. 

No, actually it's prophecy, scripture, and the teachings of God's prophets.

And if we had the same immigration laws in the nineteenth century as today I'd wager Brigham and John Taylor would have been first in line to dig tunnels, create a underground railroad, and speak out against those laws.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, actually it's prophecy, scripture, and the teachings of God's prophets.

And if we had the same immigration laws in the nineteenth century as today I'd wager Brigham and John Taylor would have been first in line to dig tunnels, create a underground railroad, and speak out against those laws.

Nothing in scripture or authoritative prophecy foretells a time when the entirety of the covenant people of God will move en masse to a single geographic location. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nothing in scripture or authoritative prophecy foretells a time when the entirety of the covenant people of God will move en masse to a single geographic location. 

Sounds really crowded ...

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, cinepro said:

With all the recent discussion of the Articles of Faith, this recent comment by President Nelson is interesting:

Here's the 10th Article of Faith:

Do we not believe in the literal gathering of Israel anymore?  Or is it something that we are putting off to some future date (linked to Christ's reign)?  Or is it a vestigial belief that could possibly be removed from the Articles of Faith since we don't currently believe it?

You might want to quote #10 accurately to start:  "We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes. That Zion will be built upon this continent."  That is what Joseph said in the Wentworth Letter.

The literal gathering of Israel and the gathering of the Ten Tribes is a biblical prophecy, and I know of no indication in LDS lore that it is meant to be taken as figurative.  Certainly Apostle Orson Hyde gave substance to the literal promise by obeying Joseph's mission to go to the Holy Land and dedicate it to the final gathering of the Jews and the building of their temple (1841).  One can see that gathering has been taking place for over a century now, and no one at the BYU Jerusalem Center thinks of it as figurative.  Indeed, the Jews have controlled Old Jerusalem since June 1967, a place not in their possession for two thousand years.

The building of Zion on the American continent also seems substantial in nature.  Perhaps you could clarify why you think that Mormons have adopted a figurative view of that.  I am completely unfamiliar with that odd notion.  If you are claiming that the establishment of branches and temples of the LDS Church on every continent means that Mormons have abandoned the literal building of Zion on the American continent, that would be like saying the existence of Jews in many countries invalidates the gathering to the State of Israel, then that makes no sense.

 

[Robert F. Smith]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When one lives in reasonable proximity to a stake of Zion, immigration laws have no bearing whatever on gathering to Zion, be it spiritual, literal or figurative. 

We have to discard this notion that gathering to Zion means everyone coming to Utah or the United States or Jackson County, Missouri. That is 19th century thinking. 

19th century or not, it is a matter of prophecy that the Great Temple of the LDS Church will be built at a specific location (the Temple Lot) in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, someday.  That will constitute the Center Stake of Zion.  How and when that will take place has not been disclosed to me, but I believe that it will occur.  That does not mean to me that all Mormons will live in Independence, MO.  That would be as silly as supposing that all Jews must live in Jerusalem.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I can define it as both spiritual and physical.  

However President Nelson here implies whether intentionally or not that the gathering of prophecy is only spiritual.

I hope that isn't what he actually meant.

"only spiritual"?  Is that what he said or implied?

[Robert F. Smith]

41 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Nothing in scripture or authoritative prophecy foretells a time when the entirety of the covenant people of God will move en masse to a single geographic location. 

And I know of no one who has made that claim.  Sounds like a straw man.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

And I know of no one who has made that claim.  Sounds like a straw man.

Isn't that what JLHPROF is saying?

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, they won’t.

These are the kinds of campaign promises you can expect when your candidate is mentally subnormal and judges whether a campaign promise is good based on the volume of enthusiasm for it from a gaggle of idiots at a rally. Then afterwards he whines on the phone to the Mexicans to stop bringing it up and insulting his idiocy. He should have promised he would destroy the galaxy of Andromeda while he was at it. It is probably equally likely he would succeed.

Please, don't hold back.  Tell us how you really feel.  😛

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"only spiritual"?  Is that what he said or implied?

Or inferred? (by JLHP...)

[Calm]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

And if we had the same immigration laws in the nineteenth century as today I'd wager Brigham and John Taylor would have been first in line to dig tunnels, create a underground railroad, and speak out against those laws.

Or migrate....

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Sounds really crowded ...

I am not moving to Missouri until its climate improves.

Quote

Missouri generally has a variety of seasonal humid subtropical climate (Köppen climate classification Cfa), with cool winters and long, hot summers....Because of its location in the interior United States, Missouri often experiences extremes in temperatures. Lacking either large mountains or oceans nearby to moderate its temperature, its climate is alternately influenced by air from the cold Arctic and the hot and humid Gulf of Mexico.

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

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am not moving to Missouri until its climate improves.

I like the sound of long, hot summers, but I'm a summer person. I've actually visited Missouri twice, once on a 'spring break' road trip to the St Louis Temple and then again en route to the Nauvoo Temple Open House (which was in summer, I think?). I thought it was lovely both times! But I'm still not relocating there, thank you.

[blueglass]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

19th century or not, it is a matter of prophecy that the Great Temple of the LDS Church will be built at a specific location (the Temple Lot) in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, someday.  That will constitute the Center Stake of Zion.  How and when that will take place has not been disclosed to me, but I believe that it will occur.  That does not mean to me that all Mormons will live in Independence, MO.  That would be as silly as supposing that all Jews must live in Jerusalem.

"hence we talk of returning to Jackson County to build the most magnificent temple that ever was formed on the earth and the most splendid city that was ever erected; yea, cities, if you please. The architectural designs of those splendid edifices, cities, walls, gardens, bowers, streets, &c., will be under the direction of the Lord, who will control and manage all these matters; and the people, from the President down, will all be under the guidance and direction of the Lord in all the pursuits of human life, until eventually they will be enabled to erect cities that will be fit to be caught up—that when Zion descends from above, Zion will also ascend from beneath, and be prepared to associate with those from above."  Elder John Taylor, made in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, April 6, 1863. JoD 10:147.  

I believe it was Joseph who prophesied of 24 temples, and a city capable of holding 20,000 people.  

[stemelbow]

I think the whole concept of a literal gathering as lame as possible.  We are each such a huge mix of so much in terms of lineage it's silly to assume any one of us is from one tribe if any.  If it could be possible that you or I have roots in one brother, we likely also have roots in another, and another, and so on.  Spiritual and not literal is really the only reasonable possibility here.  I'd hope the church would come around to that.  It never has seemed that Pres Nelson would be the one to come around to such reality, but I'd hope so.  

[stemelbow]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You might want to quote #10 accurately to start:  "We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes. That Zion will be built upon this continent."  That is what Joseph said in the Wentworth Letter.

The literal gathering of Israel and the gathering of the Ten Tribes is a biblical prophecy, and I know of no indication in LDS lore that it is meant to be taken as figurative.  Certainly Apostle Orson Hyde gave substance to the literal promise by obeying Joseph's mission to go to the Holy Land and dedicate it to the final gathering of the Jews and the building of their temple (1841).  One can see that gathering has been taking place for over a century now, and no one at the BYU Jerusalem Center thinks of it as figurative.  Indeed, the Jews have controlled Old Jerusalem since June 1967, a place not in their possession for two thousand years.

The building of Zion on the American continent also seems substantial in nature.  Perhaps you could clarify why you think that Mormons have adopted a figurative view of that.  I am completely unfamiliar with that odd notion.  If you are claiming that the establishment of branches and temples of the LDS Church on every continent means that Mormons have abandoned the literal building of Zion on the American continent, that would be like saying the existence of Jews in many countries invalidates the gathering to the State of Israel, then that makes no sense.

 

The biblical prophecy is silly in today's world.  Back then tribes could break up and move off on their own, claiming special or particular heritage, but over centuries new tribes break off, form and merge with others....soon the distinctive heritage of a tribe (which itself was kind of silly considering the mix that had happened for centuries before) is diluted to nothing.  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

19th century or not, it is a matter of prophecy that the Great Temple of the LDS Church will be built at a specific location (the Temple Lot) in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, someday.  That will constitute the Center Stake of Zion.  How and when that will take place has not been disclosed to me, but I believe that it will occur.  That does not mean to me that all Mormons will live in Independence, MO.  That would be as silly as supposing that all Jews must live in Jerusalem.

I accept and earnestly believe the prophecies about the center stake of Zion being in Missouri. That doesn’t mean I believe all of the covenant people of God will be required or even invited to live there. The notion is, as you say, absurd. That is what I meant by 19th century thinking that needs to be discarded. 

[HappyJackWagon]

Spiritual, literal, figurative...whatever.

But let's be honest. In the early days of the church did the church not go about attempting to gather the saints into one place, be it Nauvoo or later into Utah? Wasn't it understood that "literal gathering" meant that people from across the sea should make the arduous trek to Utah after conversion? Obviously, it was a very different world in the 19th century, but the 10th article of faith seems to specifically refer to a physical gathering of all the saints together.

That policy of physical gathering hasn't been a part of the church for quite a while now. For most of my life, that I recall, the brethren have talked about "lifting where you stand" and building the "stakes of zion" etc. But just because the policy the dictates physical gathering has changed, it doesn't necessarily mean the belief in a literal gathering has changed.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Spiritual, literal, figurative...whatever.

But let's be honest. In the early days of the church did the church not go about attempting to gather the saints into one place, be it Nauvoo or later into Utah? Wasn't it understood that "literal gathering" meant that people from across the sea should make the arduous trek to Utah after conversion? Obviously, it was a very different world in the 19th century, but the 10th article of faith seems to specifically refer to a physical gathering of all the saints together.

That policy of physical gathering hasn't been a part of the church for quite a while now. For most of my life, that I recall, the brethren have talked about "lifting where you stand" and building the "stakes of zion" etc. But just because the policy the dictates physical gathering has changed, it doesn't necessarily mean the belief in a literal gathering has changed.

It hasn’t been a policy in the Church since early in the 20th century. 

But there is still a physical gathering in the sense that people who join the Church come to stakes of Zion in proximity to where they live. 

The relocating to Church headquarters had to take place in the early days so the Church would have a strong enough base to accomplish the work of establishing stakes globally. But it is all part of the literal gathering. 

Edited September 5, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It hasn’t been a policy in the Church since early in the 20th century. 

But there is still a physical gathering in the sense that people who join the Church come to stakes of Zion in proximity to where they live. 

The relocating to Church headquarters had to take place in the early days so the Church would have a strong enough base to accomplish the work of establishing stakes globally. But it is all part of the literal gathering. 

I don't think Joseph Smith intended the doctrine of a "literal gathering" of Israel to mean that people should simply go to church in their area. I think he really intended for the tribes of Israel to be gathered "together" with the other tribes. For a tribe to gather with their tribe doesn't really seem like the gathering of Israel. Remember, the specific tribes of Israel are also literal tribes. I don't see how they can be literally gathered together if they are not "together". To me, it sounds like there is some significant justification for why "literal" doesn't mean "literal".

But like I suggested earlier, I think there's difference between belief of the literal gathering and the policy to literally gather at this point in time.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, blueglass said:

I believe it was Joseph who prophesied of 24 temples, and a city capable of holding 20,000 people.  

It wasn't just a prophecy.  It was all planned out.

 

Relevant Podcast:

The Plat of Zion

[CV75]

24 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think Joseph Smith intended the doctrine of a "literal gathering" of Israel to mean that people should simply go to church in their area. I think he really intended for the tribes of Israel to be gathered "together" with the other tribes. For a tribe to gather with their tribe doesn't really seem like the gathering of Israel. Remember, the specific tribes of Israel are also literal tribes. I don't see how they can be literally gathered together if they are not "together". To me, it sounds like there is some significant justification for why "literal" doesn't mean "literal".

But like I suggested earlier, I think there's difference between belief of the literal gathering and the policy to literally gather at this point in time.

Joseph Smith, was familiar with what gathering entails. Israel is to be “gathered home unto the lands of their possessions” (physical, 2 Nephi 29:14). The house of Israel is to be “gathered together again; or, in fine... come to the knowledge of the true Messiah, their Lord and their Redeemer” (spiritual, 1 Nephi 10;14). At least that is what the Book of Mormon literally sez.

1 Nephi 22:12 ties the two together: "Wherefore, he will bring them again out of captivity, and they shall be gathered together to the lands of their inheritance; and they shall be brought out of obscurity and out of darkness; and they shall know that the Lord is their Savior and their Redeemer, the Mighty One of Israel." Which happens first (these concepts are not necessarily linear)? The Lord expounds upon this in 3 Nephi 21, which shows the key role of the Gentiles in bringing about the sign of the imminent gathering of Israel in the physical and spiritual gathering of saints required to build Zion (the pure in heart, spiritual) and the New Jerusalem (physical).