Last Days

[NeedleinA]

As of right now the church does not have a presence in 33 countries. 

 

This has always been a tricky one for me personally. I'm not sure by what measurement "church presence" is gauged by? Formal missionaries with name tags or military service men and women sharing the gospel in countries they serve? Are we officially already in China with the Hong Kong temple? Does a LDS ambassador or oil field worker serving in a country count if they share the gospel while there. Does a general authority participating in a discussion forum at the Vatican count as missionary work for that country?

 

In early church history, it was easy to say that there was "no church presence" physically in most  countries, however, I would safely suggest that every single country now have LDS members living in them and sharing the gospel one way or another. Have they alone established a "church presence"?

Edited December 8, 2015 by NeedleinA

[Guest]

I'd certainly say that a formal church building, temple, or even institute or similar building would count.  

 

As far as number of people, we could go to the low end with the "where two or three are gathered in my name..."  But for "organizational" purposes it would have to be equivalent to a ward at least, but probably a stake.  See the recent thread on stakes.

 

Regardless of the standard (within the range just discussed) it wouldn't take much to create some fairly quickly.  That is the main point of MY line of posts.  The timeframe is waht the OP is about.  Such a requirement could EASILY be satisfied fairly quickly.

[nbent412]

This has always been a tricky one for me personally. I'm not sure by what measurement "church presence" is gauged by? Formal missionaries with name tags or military service men and women sharing the gospel in countries they serve? Are we officially already in China with the Hong Kong temple? Does a LDS ambassador or oil field worker serving in a country count if they share the gospel while there. Does a general authority participating in a discussion forum at the Vatican count as missionary work for that country?

 

In early church history, it was easy to say that there was "no church presence" physically in most  countries, however, I would safely suggest that every single country now have LDS members living in them and sharing the gospel one way or another. Have they alone established a "church presence"?

There are at least 12,000 saints living within mainland China (this does not include Hong Kong), and there are about 25,000 Saints in Hong Kong. So the Church definitely has a presence in China. But based off of your last 2 sentences, then yes I would agree that the church has a presence in pretty much every country.

 

 

I'd certainly say that a formal church building, temple, or even institute or similar building would count.  

 

As far as number of people, we could go to the low end with the "where two or three are gathered in my name..."  But for "organizational" purposes it would have to be equivalent to a ward at least, but probably a stake.  See the recent thread on stakes.

 

Regardless of the standard (within the range just discussed) it wouldn't take much to create some fairly quickly.  That is the main point of MY line of posts.  The timeframe is waht the OP is about.  Such a requirement could EASILY be satisfied fairly quickly.

I agree....................................................................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

I think that either the world is going to escalate quickly, soon; or it is going to continue to slowly escalate, if you know what I mean.

Edited December 8, 2015 by nbent412

[mrmarklin]

The prophecy in Daniel seems fairly specific to me, and is clearly being fulfilled before our eyes in recent and even current history.

But the stone made with no hands that will break up all the kingdoms of the world is a long way from fulfilling the prophecy. A presence of 25,000 people in China among 1.5 Bilillion just doesn't cut it for me in breaking up that kingdom. This goes for all the Muslim countries as well. No this does not "count" as much of anything toward fulfilling that prophecy IMHO.

[Vort]

I am confident in the literal fulfillment of prophecy; to reduce all or most prophecy to holy mumbo-jumbo that is "fulfilled" only in some abstract way strikes me as the height of cynicism. But I am far less confident in my (or anyone else's) ability to understand exactly how a prophecy will be fulfilled or exactly what constitutes fulfillment of a prophecy. Arguing about such things, or frankly often even discussing them, seems to be looking well beyond the mark.

[JojoBag]

I think the idea that the Gospel will be preached to all nations needs to be tempered with the teaching that the Church will always remain small and that few will join.  In the heathen nations there will be very few members because active proselyting is not allowed.  When you consider it in that light, I would say that the Gospel has been preached in almost all nations.

[Guest]

Mrmarklin,

 

I'm guessing that your interpretation is that, prior to Armageddon, all earthly governments must be "broken up".  And we are a far cry from that condition.  I disagree with both claims.

 

1) I still see no evidence anywhere in scriptures or latter-day prophets that all earthly governments will be "broken up" PRIOR to Armageddon.  In fact, for Armageddon to occur, I would think the most obvious way would be for earthly governments to fight against the people of God.

 

2) Even if that is the actual meaning of the prophecy, I still hold that such could happen in a very short time.  How long did it take for the Berlin Wall to come down?  How fast did do you think Middle Eastern countries could be taken over by theocratic extremists.  How close are many nations of Europe being taken over by Muslims and completely changing their way of life?  

 

LET ME BE CLEAR (ahem).  I am not saying anything about Muslims playing a part of the pre-Armageddon prophetic events.  I'm merely trying to point out how fast thing can happen even if we think we're "a far cry" from fulfilling them.

[Guest]

I am confident in the literal fulfillment of prophecy; to reduce all or most prophecy to holy mumbo-jumbo that is "fulfilled" only in some abstract way strikes me as the height of cynicism. But I am far less confident in my (or anyone else's) ability to understand exactly how a prophecy will be fulfilled or exactly what constitutes fulfillment of a prophecy. Arguing about such things, or frankly often even discussing them, seems to be looking well beyond the mark.

 

Yeah, you're probably right.  It's kinda like spending a lot of your free time on an internet forum full of anonymous strangers who will never change their minds because of what you say.

[Guest]

I think you're interpreting the word "Nations" incorrectly.  From how I understand your posts, you're using Nations to mean a Sovereign State (i.e. a country).  I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the prophecy as we change national borders a lot.  For example, a lot of new countries were formed after WWI and II, plus a lot more formed after the dissolution of the USSR.

 

Nations, in my opinion, refers to mission areas.  When the entire globe is organized within mission boundaries, then the prophecy is fulfilled.

[Guest]

You made a good point in your first paragraph.  I'm not really sold on the second paragraph.

 

With regard to the first, maybe, maybe not.  Let's do a hermeneutic analysis.

 

1) The remainder of the common phrase that is usually used when talking about spreading the good news is nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.  

 

2) Definitions of "nations": 

        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nation

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation

 

If we omit the "governmental" definitions (which is what you objected to in your first paragraph) and the "Indian Nations" definitions (which clearly were not in existence at the time any of these scriptures were written) we are left with essentially

 

                     "A large group of people who share several overarching social characteristics."

 

What social characteristics?  Well, how 'bout "kindreds, tongues, and people"?  If this is the correct interpretation, we have a very vague prophecy indeed.  We've certainly gotten the tongues down.  I could make a decent argument for kindreds.  But "people" is still so vague that it is difficult to define such a thing as completed or not.  

 

All the more reason to say "We have no idea when it will be."  It could be quick.  It could take a long time.