How soon is Jesus coming?

[Traveler]

20 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I understand what you're saying and generally agree. The only thing I have a problem with is the implication that those Saints who understand the Book of Mormon to be a historical record (as well as a book of Scripture, etc.) are...how did you put it....making a "critical mistake".
 

The critical mistake is - historic of what and where?  Concerning the history of the Arabia and Jerusalem 2,000 years ago as Lehi and family traveled in Arabia - I can agree is historic and offer other witness to validate my own but from Arabia to the Americas - I do not think anyone can even say with authority that Lehi and company (if anyone was converted along the way or even if Jewish decent were the majority) went east or west to arrive in the Americas and arrived where and then occupied what territory - any suggestion is speculation and guess - and such speculation and guess should not be claimed as historic (accurate history) from which we can claim this place or this artifact (including DNA) was part of Book of Mormon history or historic of something else.  

To claim something is historic and not know of what, is a "critical mistake".  When a witness is made - it must be accurate or it creates the impression that the witness is invalid. 

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

The critical mistake is - historic of what and where?  Concerning the history of the Arabia and Jerusalem 2,000 years ago as Lehi and family traveled in Arabia - I can agree is historic and offer other witness to validate my own but from Arabia to the Americas - I do not think anyone can even say with authority that Lehi and company (if anyone was converted along the way or even if Jewish decent were the majority) went east or west to arrive in the Americas and arrived where and then occupied what territory - any suggestion is speculation and guess - and such speculation and guess should not be claimed as historic (accurate history) from which we can claim this place or this artifact (including DNA) was part of Book of Mormon history or historic of something else.  

To claim something is historic and not know of what, is a "critical mistake".  When a witness is made - it must be accurate or it creates the impression that the witness is invalid. 

 

The Traveler

"Critical" is melodramatic, and also requires an end point. Critical to what end? Critical implies that something fails because of it. What fails? Eternal salvation? Do Saints who make this "critical" mistake you describe lose their souls?

[goor_de]

18 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Since the Lord clearly has not returned, “rising generation” must be interpreted dispensationally. 

 

This is means that the rising generation will happen in the current dispensation. 

 

No one knows the time. 

what do you want to interpret there, the next generation was dead in 2000.
dispensation is something else

[Traveler]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

"Critical" is melodramatic, and also requires an end point. Critical to what end? Critical implies that something fails because of it. What fails? Eternal salvation? Do Saints who make this "critical" mistake you describe lose their souls?

If it is a matter of losing one's soul - what is critical? Or should we say cannot be repented of?  Paul said, in essence - that if we know something to be better and don't do it - it is sin.  I am suggesting it is better to say the Book of Mormon is a witness of Jesus Christ - than a historical record we are not sure of where such history took place.

 

The Traveler

 

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, goor_de said:

what do you want to interpret there, the next generation was dead in 2000.
dispensation is something else

It depends - If someone was translated then that generation has not all passed away.  Jesus said the same 2000 years ago - he may have been referring to his Apostle John and the 3 Nephites.  Instead of giving a time frame of the second coming - the reference may be of somethings else.

 

The Traveler

[goor_de]

9 minutes ago, Traveler said:

If it is a matter of losing one's soul - what is critical? 

 

The Traveler

 

we lose all our soul.
the soul is the living being
in the dead, the mind detaches itself from the body
and goes to the spirit world

Edited September 24, 2018 by goor_de

[goor_de]

16 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It depends - If someone was translated then that generation has not all passed away.  Jesus said the same 2000 years ago - he may have been referring to his Apostle John and the 3 Nephites.  Instead of giving a time frame of the second coming - the reference may be of somethings else.

 

The Traveler

I believe Bruce R. MacConkie.
he saw it the same way, the generation ended in 2000
it makes no sense to read something else.
Joseph Smith wanted to make people hope that it will come soon.
not 2100 or 2200, that does not make sense

1 generation does not live longer than 100 years

Edited September 24, 2018 by goor_de

[NightSG]

If every ward or branch has that one guy who's sure "no man may know the day or the hour" doesn't apply to him, and all the others must be wrong, that covers about 2.5 years worth of days 'known' by some man. Now, figure other faiths have something similar and it looks like we're going to be waiting a few more decades. 

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, goor_de said:

I believe Bruce R. MacConkie.
he saw it the same way, the generation ended in 2000
it makes no sense to read something else.
Joseph Smith wanted to make people hope that it will come soon.
not 2100 or 2200, that does not make sense

1 generation does not live longer than 100 years

Guten tag - how do you interpret Luke chapter 21 - verse 27 where Jesus (Son of Man) will return in clouds of glory and power and then verse  32: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.  Which includes the fulfilling of verse 27 which happened 2,000 years ago - not 100 years as you claim is the correct interpretation?

 

The Traveler

[goor_de]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Guten tag - how do you interpret Luke chapter 21 - verse 27 where Jesus (Son of Man) will return in clouds of glory and power and then verse  32: Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.  Which includes the fulfilling of verse 27 which happened 2,000 years ago - not 100 years as you claim is the correct interpretation?

 

The Traveler

ok

33 And immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.

34 Verily, I say to you, the generation in which all this will manifest will not pass until all that I have told you will be fulfilled.

Joseph Smith—Matthäus

that sees as the last sign the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light,  will not pass.

However, Smith in 1843 spoke of the coming real generation of those present.
that is precisely the next generation.
not something

A real generation only lives 100 years

In Germany, the last time has come because of the refugees

your president is the best president for 100 years

Edited September 24, 2018 by goor_de

[mordorbund]

On 9/24/2018 at 1:18 PM, goor_de said:

I believe Bruce R. MacConkie.
he saw it the same way, the generation ended in 2000

Go back and re-read your quote. That's not what he said.

[goor_de]

10 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Go back and re-read your quote. That's not what he said.

OK. a little more
 

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

On 9/24/2018 at 10:43 AM, goor_de said:

what do you want to interpret there, the next generation was dead in 2000.
dispensation is something else

Why assume that they all died. There are stories of people being caught up in this dispensation. I would not be surprised to learn that there are several translated people that are walking among us that were born in the early 1800s.

[goor_de]

8 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Why assume that they all died. There are stories of people being caught up in this dispensation. I would not be surprised to learn that there are several translated people that are walking among us that were born in the early 1800s.

j.smith spoke of the coming generation.
not from people who can live to be 200 years old
that makes no sense

[JohnsonJones]

18 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Why assume that they all died. There are stories of people being caught up in this dispensation. I would not be surprised to learn that there are several translated people that are walking among us that were born in the early 1800s.

There are?

I would be interested in hearing such stories.

[goor_de]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

There are?

I would be interested in hearing such stories.

it probably exists, but that has nothing to do with the prediction j.smith.
The only possibility I see in the fact that the people in 2000 were not ready.

[Traveler]

23 hours ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

Why assume that they all died. There are stories of people being caught up in this dispensation. I would not be surprised to learn that there are several translated people that are walking among us that were born in the early 1800s.

I have only heard of one story of one of the 3 Nephits appearing during my life time - but because I was not directly involved it is not something that I can give as witness.  However, I have been assisted on a few occasions plus  an experience in the temple that may be related - but again the individual did not identify themselves and for all I know they could just be another person.  And to be honest I have wondered if a translated person might just as well minister on the internet.  Again not something that I can witness to one way or another.

There is a story told of Joseph Smith as a boy (by his mother) about a stranger that helped Joseph when he was lost as the family moved from Vermont to New York.  I do not think that ministers will always identify themselves but I think that in most cases they will - but I do not know nor pretend to know what principles govern such things.

 

The Traveler

[mrmarklin]

On 9/24/2018 at 9:28 AM, Traveler said:

The critical mistake is - historic of what and where?  Concerning the history of the Arabia and Jerusalem 2,000 years ago as Lehi and family traveled in Arabia - I can agree is historic and offer other witness to validate my own but from Arabia to the Americas - I do not think anyone can even say with authority that Lehi and company (if anyone was converted along the way or even if Jewish decent were the majority) went east or west to arrive in the Americas and arrived where and then occupied what territory - any suggestion is speculation and guess - and such speculation and guess should not be claimed as historic (accurate history) from which we can claim this place or this artifact (including DNA) was part of Book of Mormon history or historic of something else.  

To claim something is historic and not know of what, is a "critical mistake".  When a witness is made - it must be accurate or it creates the impression that the witness is invalid. 

 

The Traveler

Here is an historical fact about the Book of Mormon. The plates from which it was translated, were found in New York on the North American continent. 

It’s true that we don’t know where Lehi’s group landed. But the plates are evidence that he did. Therefore to disregard the history of the Book of Mormon is not logical. 

 

FWIW, I don’t think we are ever going to find a building anywhere that has a carving in it that says Nephi slept here. 

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

Here is an historical fact about the Book of Mormon. The plates from which it was translated, were found in New York on the North American continent. 

It’s true that we don’t know where Lehi’s group landed. But the plates are evidence that he did. Therefore to disregard the history of the Book of Mormon is not logical. 

 

FWIW, I don’t think we are ever going to find a building anywhere that has a carving in it that says Nephi slept here. 

No, a carving that says “Nephi is a Daddy’s boy” or “Lehi, the Visionary Freak” or “Ishmael’s girlz R Hawt” somewhere on the Arabian Peninsula seems more likely.  

[Traveler]

13 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Here is an historical fact about the Book of Mormon. The plates from which it was translated, were found in New York on the North American continent. 

It’s true that we don’t know where Lehi’s group landed. But the plates are evidence that he did. Therefore to disregard the history of the Book of Mormon is not logical. 

 

FWIW, I don’t think we are ever going to find a building anywhere that has a carving in it that says Nephi slept here. 

From Mexico south (including South America) less than 1% of the known archaeological sites have been cataloged.  As of today there is no good fit of any area that fits the Book of Mormon.  The Nephits kept a great deal of records - that Mormon indicated were hidden away.  In addition Joseph made copies of the characters that were on the Golden Plates.  I do not doubt that someday an artifact will be found that contains similar characters or some thing that indicates a Nephit presents.  I am quite sure that once the historic reality (time and place) of the Book of Mormon is established - it will make little difference in the greater landscape.  I doubt that even a good and honest person like @prisonchaplain would alter his religious paradigm that has served him so well for so long. 

It does not appear to me that historical evidence (or for that matter any empirical evidence) is in reality that important to most religious persons.  Part of the great divide between Science and Religion is that those of religious stripe are so often are willing to stand in the empirical evidence characteristic of the bright sun of noon day - and call it night.  For the life of me I do not understand why those so willing to do so demand that we publish to the world that the Book of Mormon must be historic and with out a single thread of evidence that it is.  The problem is that such see things exclusively from their own point of view - so to demand it is historic (which is a little different than saying we believe Nephi to be a real person that lived somewhere in the Americas - confuses and creates more misunderstanding.  Rather, I believe it is better to say that the historic reality of the Book of Mormon has not yet been established - and for now must be understood and believed in essence, exclusively on faith.

 

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

@Traveler is insightful. The historical accuracy of the BoM is largely the concern of academics, educated church members, and those opposed to your faith. Non-members, and probably a fair number of the faithful, believe the church, the scriptures, and the prophets because they received a witness of the Spirit. Afterwards, faith-affirming facts are cool, and troubling information becomes "back-burner" material the LORD will clarify later.

I believe Adam & Eve were literal beings in a literal Garden of Eden. I believe the flood was global. I believe a huge number of Israelites crossed the Red Sea. I believe creation happened, largely as described in Genesis 1 & 2, and suspect the Earth is much younger than current science suggests. Once in awhile their is a scientific finding that comports with my views, and I find that nifty. Other times, academia produces critical information. Unless it is almost impossible to deny, I would tend to think, "Oh well, the science/history will catch up eventually."

As believers, called to be sober-minded and wise, we should probably rise to higher standards of thinking. I should do better. Perhaps we all should. Intellectual laziness is not God-pleasing.

[Jane_Doe]

54 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

@Traveler is insightful. The historical accuracy of the BoM is largely the concern of academics, educated church members, and those opposed to your faith. Non-members, and probably a fair number of the faithful, believe the church, the scriptures, and the prophets because they received a witness of the Spirit. Afterwards, faith-affirming facts are cool, and troubling information becomes "back-burner" material the LORD will clarify later.

I believe Adam & Eve were literal beings in a literal Garden of Eden. I believe the flood was global. I believe a huge number of Israelites crossed the Red Sea. I believe creation happened, largely as described in Genesis 1 & 2, and suspect the Earth is much younger than current science suggests. Once in awhile their is a scientific finding that comports with my views, and I find that nifty. Other times, academia produces critical information. Unless it is almost impossible to deny, I would tend to think, "Oh well, the science/history will catch up eventually."

As believers, called to be sober-minded and wise, we should probably rise to higher standards of thinking. I should do better. Perhaps we all should. Intellectual laziness is not God-pleasing.

Personally, for me the purpose of all scripture to bring men unto Christ, and I'll admit I don't really care about the historical accuracy / which parts are metaphorical debate.  It just... really doesn't matter to me.

[theplains]

On 9/27/2018 at 11:54 AM, Jane_Doe said:

Personally, for me the purpose of all scripture to bring men unto Christ, and I'll admit I don't really care about the historical accuracy / which parts are metaphorical debate.  It just... really doesn't matter to me.

What parts of the Book of Mormon do you believe are historically incorrect?

Thanks,
Jim

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, theplains said:

What parts of the Book of Mormon do you believe are historically incorrect?

Thanks,
Jim

I noticed how you completely misrepresented my comment here.  I do not appreciate such.

[Guest]

On 8/30/2018 at 10:22 PM, Scott said:

Another sign is that the gospel will be taught in all nations.  We are a really long way from that; though a lot closer than we were 100 years ago!

Brigham Young (and I'm not saying that I agree with him) said that the Jews were the most wicked people on earth and will be the last to be converted.  If this is true, than Israel will be the last nation where the gospel will be taught.  I don't know how much to focus on Brigham Young's statements though.  As far as I know, he is the only Church leader who predicted who the last people to be converted will be.   

Here is a list of countries where the gospel has not been taught (population wise, this is a majority of the world's population):

Afghanistan
Algeria
Anguilla
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Bhutan
British Virgin Islands
Brunei
Burkina Faso
Burma
Chad
China (missionaries have preached in Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan)
Comoros
Cuba
Djibouti
East Timor
Eritrea
Equatorial Guinea
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands. (There were at least two official full time missionaries in the Faroe Islands in 1958)
Gambia
Greenland
Guinea-Bissau
Iraq
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Libya
Liechtenstein
Maldives
Mali
Mauritania
Monaco
Morocco
Nepal
Niger
Norfolk Island
North Korea
Oman
Pitcairn Islands
Qatar
San Marino
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Somalia
South Sudan
Sudan
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
United Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Vatican City
Wallis and Futuna
Yemen

Here is a list of countries that the (modern) gospel was taught at one time, but is no longer being taught:

Israel/Palestine 

Iran

Laos

Lebanon

Syria

Russia is a unique case.   Preaching there is now illegal, even by Russians.  I believe meetings can still be held by existing members though.  If the Church can't recruit more numbers, with the existing wards and branches still thrive or die out over time?  Only time will tell and the situation can change at any time.  

You are incorrect.  The gospel has been taught in all those nations.  It just hasn't been taught via a formal mission program.  I've been to Saudi, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and UAE.  There are members of the Church there.  It has been taught.

I also don't know why you have noted some missionaries in some of those nations, yet you included them in your list.