Bensalem

The claim was made that blood line mattered; it does not.

Seems to me that the only true physical gathering would be paired with the only true spiritual gathering; both coming together in one place...the LDS church.

Wow! No mention of Israel. So that settles it. The LDS church is the only Israel. Now if you could get a copy of the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 to the map makers we could put an end to this misunderstanding.

The Jewish claim of blood line descent from Abraham does not get them into the LDS church and it will not gain them access to the kingdom of Israel in heaven.

Firstly, I don’t have a problem with naming the Jewish people (past and present) blameless. I made the point early on that even the Jews of Jesus’ day should be held blameless for the crucifixion because they were only fulfilling God’s word. Secondly, I don’t agree with your presentation that God uses evil to produce the right end. I believe God speaks and righteous men are called into fulfillment of His words. Free choice allows unrighteous men to act against the word of God. And thirdly, there can only be one Israel. Genesis tells the story of Jacob and Esau; the first born Esau deserved the birthright but it was given to Jacob. Likewise, the LDS church has received the blessing of the birthright and the promise of eternal progression. The Jews have been out maneuvered by Christ.

The earthly Israel must be the same as the spiritual Israel, which is the LDS church.

The way I understand it is that the title Israel belongs to those who are baptized into the LDS church. Other baptisms do not make you a part of Israel because the LDS church does not recognize other baptisms. Likewise, Jews are not a part of Israel because they reject the baptism which Christ preached. I don't deny that the LDS church is the spiritual gathering place of Israel. But I also see it as the temporal gathering place. Christ did not set up a spiritual church only; the LDS church exists temporally as well. He doesn't have one spiritual Israel based in Utah and a temporal Israel stationed in the Middle East.

If you wish to rewrite history by calling it a Jewish state instead of calling it Israel, then there's really no point in pursuing this conversation.

Your statements ignore the issue at hand. The UN action created a second Israel separate from the Israel Christ created in the LDS church. The biblical record says God will bring the lost tribes back to the land of Israel. Never has the UN claimed this act was God inspired or revealed. On the other hand, the LDS has claimed revelation in regards to the formation and gathering of Israel. My views are far from being anti-Semitic since I support the gathering of Israel in the LDS church. Furthermore, it doesn’t matter to me who claims the land now because according to the promise the land will eventually be in the hands of saints.

...which raises the question, are the Jewish people Christ's enemy? Does their denial of the Son make them enemies of God the Father?

The UN gave authority for the state Israel to be organized. Many Christians and many Jews have claimed this to be fulfillment of Biblical prophesies regarding the gathering of Israel. On the other hand, the LDS church claims to be Israel and the gathering point of the lost tribes. I am trying to demonstrate that the first contradicts the second. The actions of the UN and those people who have followed that call back to the Middle East have settled in the wrong Israel. The restoration of the kingdom of Israel in the LDS church is the true Israel.

Why does someone open a thread and then not participate?

No, he is not required to relinquish his beliefs on evolution, be it by intelligent design or by Darwinism. And yes, he may continue to teach his own scientific theories at school. Alienation of learned minds is not part of Christ’s program in the LDS church. Christian fascism which requires a certain thinking on the matter will fail at stopping the growth of human knowledge just as surely as the Nazi tyrannizes resulted in their failure to acquire the atomic bomb before the US. These “do-gooders” of the Christian faith who insist on things like a seven (24-hour) day creation or promote dinosaurs existing with Adam and Eve will fall to the wayside of historical religious folly the same as the Catholics did in the case of Galileo.

Oh, wonderful! This answers my question. Missouri is the launching point, the saints will announce it, and Christ will be in charge, not a UN General Assembly meeting in New York. It is good to hear there remains only one true Israel and this is the LDS Church. Thank you very much for this information.

Or even the Jews in the crucifixion of Jesus, which brings us full circle to the topic at hand.

From above: "...Catholics, believe we can obtain the same nature of God, but not the same substance." We know that God is Spirit and God is Light; we know that Christ is the resurrection and the Light. His nature and His substance is therefore, Light and Spirit in flesh and bone. There is no distinction in scripture made between God's nature and His substance. God is God and we become part of Him. God is Priesthood and it is available to us. Priesthood is a group of glorified beings and so God must be a group of glorified beings. Why else would the Hebrews have called Him Elohim, which is the masculine plural name of God.

I see only two possibilities in regards to the UN action. One, it is an act of men in contradiction to the Israel built in the church of JC of latter-day saints. Or two, if it is fulfillment at the hands of God it must be linked to Orson Hyde's consecration of the land back in 1841. The inhabitants of the state of Israel must acknowledge God's hand working through the LDS church or they appear simply as "land pirates". The first time Israel laid claim to their birthright was at the hands of the prophet Joshua in succession to Moses. It was recorded in the Bible and there in lays the justification. They have no such justification this time around. They are a prophetless nation. God does not work through them to bring about His objectives. The only other choice is to turn to a nation of prophets in Christ for their justification in reclaiming the land and the promise.

I don’t think I advocated a declaration as you have presented here. To be clear, I believe the presentation should be based on describing what God and Christ have promised to the saints…no holds barred.

I never said the LDS church is not serving it up; thanks for pointing that out. In my mind they serve as caterers to the wedding feast. My comments have been directed to those who advised constraining the food being offered. It is not a time for timidity.

Okay, I get your point (correct me if I'm wrong). The Jewish people have a claim to being Israel because they are Jewish. They required no UN mandate to stake their claim. My question remains: If the LDS church is Israel by way of an act of God, how does God acknowledge or accommodate this other Israel? If anyone can demonstrate to me that they are the true Israel then perhaps I would immigrate. It seems one or the other Israel must be walking with their shoes on the wrong feet. There is clearly one Israel built in Christ and one Israel built on the denial of Christ. Isn't it for them to come to the knowledge of Christ and join the LDS church? I find it curious that those in the Middle East are negotiating a two state solution between Jews and Palestinians, while ignoring the true dichotomy of there being two peoples claiming to be Israel. That would be like the LDS church negotiating a Christian annex to their Temples with the Catholics. Has God become so compromising as to create confusion about what Israel is to be?

But the former prompted the latter. It was the declaration of an Israeli state that promoted the arrival of the Jews. If the LDS are Israel and the gathering place of Israel, then doesn’t a man-made Israel become a problem in contradiction? And what of the displaced masses? At the end of the war there were many more (a higher percentage of) Christians in Palestine than today. Were not these the sons of Abraham in Christ with a claim to the promise? Now we have a majority of two cultures which both deny the true Israel founded in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. More perplexing is if the establishment of a second Israel separate from Christ’s Israel in the church was indeed the act of God, why than don’t they have peace? Does God and Christ establish hatred or does He establish peace, even as the saints have? I just don’t see the hand of God acting in the establishment or the governance of the nation of Israel in the Middle East. What are your thoughts?

I first replied honestly… …and then I replied fashiously with… I am left to presume you only take umbrage with the latter. But let me appease your concerns by confessing outright that my voice is among the least in the kingdom of God.

When I read scripture I register bluntness on the lips of the prophets of Israel. Joseph Smith was blunt, he didn’t hold any punches. Paul declared himself shameless and was fearless in proclaiming the words of the gospel. Rejection is part of the program, silence is not. Protestants are happy to be Christ’s flock because they have not been taught to be his shepherds. Their priests have shepherded them into a corral with a gate closed onto living revelation. Meanwhile, the saints in the church have the word of God in the gift of the Holy Ghost and their priests have the authority of the apostles of old to proclaim his word. Controversies are the meat of the gospel served up on platters of truth at the wedding feast of the Lamb. I think when God’s children come onto the scene they should be told what He is serving. Then if they don’t wish to partake, it will be their loss and not the saint’s fault in silence. There remains plenty of bread and wine at His supper for the palettes of the cautious.

Yet some have claimed the LDS are holding back and they rebel against the larger picture after being "effectively" converted. Shouldn’t the saints be as effective in rebuttal to those who would use the words of Isaiah chapter 14 against the theology of eternal progression by simply pointing out that those words (verses 5-21) are to be applied to the king of Babylon, the tyrants of this world, and not to those who hold the priesthood of Christ in redemption of the truth.

I don't think Joseph Smith was being prideful and presumptuous when he stated that we shall be gods. The promise comes from God. Why hide from stating the truth of it or even sharing a testimony of it? Do we glorify God with our mouths shout about the matter?