LDS view of Israel


Recommended Posts

The larger Christian community is divided on Israel's place in world events.  Some, including me, believe that Israel remains an important part of end-times prophesies, and that God still has special plans for the nation and people.  Some call the most pro-Israel viewpoint Christian Zionism.  Other Christians (often mainline groups, Lutherans, Reformed) teach Replacement Theology--that the Christian Church has replaced Israel and the Jews, and we should read the Bible in that light.  As a result, Many Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals, and others who espouse pre-millennial (or Dispensationalist) beliefs about the end times are very supportive of political Israel.  Those espousing Replacement Theology tend to be negative, seeing Israel as a human rights abuser, and they tend to have sympathy for Palestinians.

 

Is there an LDS view on all this--or are perceptions diverse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The larger Christian community is divided on Israel's place in world events.  Some, including me, believe that Israel remains an important part of end-times prophesies, and that God still has special plans for the nation and people.  Some call the most pro-Israel viewpoint Christian Zionism.  Other Christians (often mainline groups, Lutherans, Reformed) teach Replacement Theology--that the Christian Church has replaced Israel and the Jews, and we should read the Bible in that light.  As a result, Many Evangelicals, Baptists, Pentecostals, and others who espouse pre-millennial (or Dispensationalist) beliefs about the end times are very supportive of political Israel.  Those espousing Replacement Theology tend to be negative, seeing Israel as a human rights abuser, and they tend to have sympathy for Palestinians.

 

Is there an LDS view on all this--or are perceptions diverse?

Hmm, the LDS view of things. From my understanding, which may be limited: 

We are under the oath and covenant of the priesthood, both Jew and Gentile have been invited, which extends the same blessings of Abraham unto all who choose to partake of it. Our church is a literally taking part in the literal gathering of Israel. Jew and Gentile have been invited, thus a bit of the Replacement Theology and a little bit not.

Politically depends on the person. Most members are fairly conservative, which you can infer what their political stance would be.

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our Article of Faith #10 has a nice concise description of that belief.

 

10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.

 https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like it's even more of a replacing than Replacement Theology--Zion literally gets moved.  Yet, am I right in thinking that LDS tendency towards conservatism means that perhaps a majority would be "pro-Israel?"  If so, why?  We Evangelicals do so because we believe the blessings remain for those of us who bless the children of Israel--and again, that Israel plays prominently in our understanding of End Times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC you might find this somewhat helpful - Israel

 

I tend to be pro-Israel because I believe the Jews are the Lord's covenant people of the Old Testament and that they have been promised this land for their inheritance. I think it unwise to fight against what God has promised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isaiah 2: 3 ...he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

 

There will be two locations -- Zion (the New Jerusalem) for the gathering of the Ten Tribes and Jerusalem for the gathering of the Jews.

 

The physical gathering of Israel means that the covenant people will be “gathered home to the lands of their inheritance, and shall be established in all their lands of promise” (2 Nephi 9:2). The tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh will be gathered in the Americas. The tribe of Judah will return to the city of Jerusalem and the area surrounding it. The ten lost tribes will receive from the tribe of Ephraim their promised blessings (see D&C 133:26–34).

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-42-the-gathering-of-the-house-of-israel?lang=eng

Edited by cdowis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In LDS theology there is both the New Jerusalem (Zion), and old Jerusalem. Which will be built, rebuilt.

Matthew 20:16, and the parable refers to the grafting in of other people to the tree (of life?). A cross reference to the Book of Mormon (Jacob5:63) Which is similar to other parables of the bible.
 

 

 16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

Gods covenants are still in effect for the heritage of Israel, predicated on following in righteousness. The covenant encompasses both the Jews who are first which through their falling away, the gospel then goes to the gentile who are last to be made first, and when the day comes those who the gospel went to first it shall be brought again. Something along those lines.

The literal lineage of Israel still has a part in the covenant. (Regardless of how early or later everyone was called)

Edited by Crypto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Other Christians (often mainline groups, Lutherans, Reformed) teach Replacement Theology--that the Christian Church has replaced Israel and the Jews, and we should read the Bible in that light....

 

PC, could you provide some sources about these denominations that support Replacement Theology? I've found articles about what's wrong with Replacement Theology but so far I've not found articles from anyone who actually supports it. However, I did find this site.

 

http://replacementtheology.org/

 

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem that "Replacement Theology," or Supersessionism, are terms that we premillenialists have assigned to those who do not subscribe to Israel's continued prominence in the End Times.  In digging around Reformed and Lutheran sites, I found that they gravitate towards Amillenialism (that the 1000 years is not a literal time, and that Bible passages describing it are highly figurative, and the events have been (or are being) fulfilled.  Lutheran sites worked hard to avoid being drawn into a box that could end with an anti-Semitic label.  They, and the Reformed, preferred simply speaking of "People of God" rather than "Israel" vs. a very distinct Christian Church.

 

http://reformedanswers.org/answer.asp/file/40292

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is useful to read "Abraham Divided" by Daniel Peterson.   You'll learn that the political state of Israel is NOT the same as the Lord's covenant people.   We should no more look uncritically at all of what Israel does politically, than we should look upon what the United States does with such eyes. 

 

As I look at this, I think Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories is overstepping.   I think the way Israel treats Palestinians who are not involved in terrorist activities is reprehensible.   Both things in my view risk losing any protection from God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is useful to read "Abraham Divided" by Daniel Peterson.   You'll learn that the political state of Israel is NOT the same as the Lord's covenant people.   We should no more look uncritically at all of what Israel does politically, than we should look upon what the United States does with such eyes. 

 

As I look at this, I think Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories is overstepping.   I think the way Israel treats Palestinians who are not involved in terrorist activities is reprehensible.   Both things in my view risk losing any protection from God.

 

Are you talking about Israel in the days of Joshia (Old Testament) or are you talking about today - If you are talking at exclusively modern Israel - why are you making such a distinction about what Israel does with those occupying land given to them by birth right from G-d?  It appears to me that modern Israel is much kinder than was Israel as lead by G-d and Joshia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you talking about Israel in the days of Joshia (Old Testament) or are you talking about today - If you are talking at exclusively modern Israel - why are you making such a distinction about what Israel does with those occupying land given to them by birth right from G-d?  It appears to me that modern Israel is much kinder than was Israel as lead by G-d and Joshia.

 

The thing is, what God gave, God took away.  The land they occupy illegally today is not and has never been a part of Modern Israel, a fact that is conveniently swept under the table whenever it is brought up.

I'm very much in the replacement theology camp, The Church today is Israel, we are the heirs to the covenant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing is, what God gave, God took away.  The land they occupy illegally today is not and has never been a part of Modern Israel, a fact that is conveniently swept under the table whenever it is brought up.

I'm very much in the replacement theology camp, The Church today is Israel, we are the heirs to the covenant. 

 

Hmmmmm - where do you think the "sons of Levi" will make an offering to the L-rd in righteousness? (D&C 13) Also what did Orson Hyde dedicate the land of Jerusalem for?  The gathering of the Later-day Saints?  Also how will Jesus manifest himself to the Jews in Jerusalem (his second coming) if they do not gather there?  One last point - If you look up abomination of desolation in the LDS bible dictionary - how can that happen as prophesied for the last days if the Jews have not gathered in Jerusalem?

 

One thing perhaps missing in the discussion is the restoration of Jerusalem - does that have anything to do with the translation of Salem during the time of Melchizedek? and its return as prophesied by Enoch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For interests sake I thought this video might help the discussion in some ways. Not because it addresses anything to do with the lds view of Israel, but because it so clearly articulates the problems over there.

 

The Middle East Problem

 

Not really, it paints the Israelis as the innocent victims, which clearly they are not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmmm - where do you think the "sons of Levi" will make an offering to the L-rd in righteousness? (D&C 13) Also what did Orson Hyde dedicate the land of Jerusalem for?  The gathering of the Later-day Saints?  Also how will Jesus manifest himself to the Jews in Jerusalem (his second coming) if they do not gather there?  One last point - If you look up abomination of desolation in the LDS bible dictionary - how can that happen as prophesied for the last days if the Jews have not gathered in Jerusalem?

 

One thing perhaps missing in the discussion is the restoration of Jerusalem - does that have anything to do with the translation of Salem during the time of Melchizedek? and its return as prophesied by Enoch?

 

Clearly there is still a role for the Jews in Gods future plans, but they are no longer the vehicle in which the Lord has placed his Priesthood, that now resides in the Church of Christ.  I don't believe God turns his back on those who were once the chosen people of the OT, but its through the new covenant that salvation is found now, not the old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, it paints the Israelis as the innocent victims, which clearly they are not.

 

 

Sorry PC if this is becoming a thread hijack.

 

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/legitimacy-of-israels-claim-on-land-won-in-defensive-wars/

 

The palestinian refugee problem is from the palestinians voluntarily leaving their homes to attack Israel thinking they'd win and rid themselves of the Jews. When they lost they weren't allowed to return to their homes creating a "refugee" problem.

 

The lands shown in your video to have been taken from the palestinians are legitimate annexations from winning a defensive war.

Edited by SpiritDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose another sign of the pro-Israel perspective of LDS people is the existence of study tours to the Holy Land:  http://www.mormonheritage.com/lds-church-history-tours-in-israel/

 

I fellow named Morris Murdock has a site offering them as well--though it seemed to private for me to link here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose another sign of the pro-Israel perspective of LDS people is the existence of study tours to the Holy Land:  http://www.mormonheritage.com/lds-church-history-tours-in-israel/

 

I fellow named Morris Murdock has a site offering them as well--though it seemed to private for me to link here.

As well as the BYU Jerusalem center:

https://ce.byu.edu/jc/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry PC if this is becoming a thread hijack.

 

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/legitimacy-of-israels-claim-on-land-won-in-defensive-wars/

 

The palestinian refugee problem is from the palestinians voluntarily leaving their homes to attack Israel thinking they'd win and rid themselves of the Jews. When they lost they weren't allowed to return to their homes creating a "refugee" problem.

 

The lands shown in your video to have been taken from the palestinians are legitimate annexations from winning a defensive war.

No, the Palestinians didn't leave their homes to attack Israel, the majority left to escape the conflict.  Or are you saying they should have just stayed and been slaughtered?  Have we suddenly gone back to the middle ages?  Legitimate annexation of land?  In that case surely Hitler had every right to march into the Rhineland, annex Austria, and invade Poland, the Netherlands, France and keep them as they were just annexing territory! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to that, the refugees were rejected by all other Arab states because they are better used as refugees and "homeless".

 

Or maybe because they had perfectly good homes in Palestine which they could have returned to... Oh wait they couldn't because the Israeli's stole their land and gave it to European immigrants!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I didn't want to threadjack; but we've got the guests and the band, so maybe we should just have the party:

LDG, do you also hold that Cuban exiles in Miami, Vietnamese refugees in San Francisco, and ethnic Chinese in Taiwan have legitimate claims over the territories they were forced to abandon fifty years ago?

If not, what makes the Palestinians any different?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the Palestinians didn't leave their homes to attack Israel, the majority left to escape the conflict.  Or are you saying they should have just stayed and been slaughtered?  Have we suddenly gone back to the middle ages?  Legitimate annexation of land?  In that case surely Hitler had every right to march into the Rhineland, annex Austria, and invade Poland, the Netherlands, France and keep them as they were just annexing territory! 

 

Israel's legitimate annexation of land cannot be compared to Germany because Germany has a firm, non-negotiated, fully defensible border recognized by all nations and peoples.  Anytime Germany takes land outside of this border such as Austria and Poland is a clear usurpation of someone else's sovereign land.

 

Israel, on the other hand, was given a border by the British, they claimed it, tried to defend it, but the British gave somebody else dibs on that same land, so now it became an argument on who owns what.  The British threw up its hands because they know they made a mess of things and lobbed the entire matter to the UN.  But until TODAY, the UN cannot agree on where that border is.  The line keeps on moving so Israel decided way back in the 50's to claim their borders by conquest to finally end the racket... the reason they had to annex that land is because the last border UN drew (which did not completely get agreed on) was not defensible.  The annexed land, therefore, provides a barrier from which Israel can defend its borders.

 

It is legitimate because nobody has legitimate claims to that land.  Nobody.  The Palestinians do not.  The Israelis do not.  The British do not.  The UN do not.  So the land is up for grabs and the most effective way to claim it when negotiations fail time and time again is to conquer it before somebody else conquers your entire nation.  Remember, Israel is one little nation in the middle of superpowers able and willing to wipe them off the face of the planet.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...