How soon is Jesus coming?


Chilean
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Anddenex said:

This is why I believe we are told it will be a great and terrible day(s), and why the scriptures inform the safety of Zion (as people will be running to Zion or they will have to draw sword to fight).

These will be interesting times, and President Nelson's quote in April conference all the more important, "In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost."

So, what conditions do you see in the Book of Mormon that didn't exist in earlier years of the Book of Mormon which parallel to our day?

What do we see today that didn't exist in earlier generations of the Church or the United States?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

So, what conditions do you see in the Book of Mormon that didn't exist in earlier years of the Book of Mormon which parallel to our day?

What do we see today that didn't exist in earlier generations of the Church or the United States?

I am not sure I am comprehending your question properly in relation to my response, but I will answer according to what I am understanding your question to be.

1) Political state of government

2) Nations ripening in iniquity that remove the Spirit of the Lord (the spirit no longer strives with them)

3) A decrease in religious freedoms and religious voices which are substantiated even by members. This quote from Elder Maxwell suits, "How wonderfully prophetic our beloved Elder Neal A. Maxwell was clear back in 1978 when he said in a BYU devotional: “We shall see in our time a maximum … effort … to establish irreligion as the state religion. [These secularists will] use the carefully preserved … freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as [they reject] the value … of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.” Continuing on he said: “Your discipleship may see the time come when religious convictions are heavily discounted. … This new irreligious imperialism [will] seek to disallow certain … opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.”

4) Zion will once again be established, like unto the city of Enoch

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Anddenex said:

I am not sure I am comprehending your question properly in relation to my response, but I will answer according to what I am understanding your question to be.

1) Political state of government

2) Nations ripening in iniquity that remove the Spirit of the Lord (the spirit no longer strives with them)

3) A decrease in religious freedoms ...“We shall see in our time a maximum … effort … to establish irreligion as the state religion...

4) Zion will once again be established, like unto the city of Enoch

Somewhat answers my question. What I'm trying to differentiate are the conditions that will signal the second coming as opposed to the same old evil that the world has always seen.  

I myself have never been able to really draw a line.  The wording of various prophecies are quite lacking in detail. And many people's feelings on the matter are inconsistent with statistics.  I guess I'm just wondering if anyone out there has any more definitive ideas of the "conditions of the last days."

I don't see #4 because we have not yet established it.  I believe that would have to be after the fall of the US.  And the elders of Israel areleft to hold it inviolatw and hold our standard up as an ensign to all nations.  Not here yet.  Yet.

#1 & #2 have always been there. I've heard a quote attributed to several GA's saying we've reached the point of Sodom and Gumorrah. That was back in the 70s.  I have never actually looked these up. So, I don't know if they are true.

At what point is that going to be so bad that the trigger will be pulled so to speak?

Or is it just the frog in a slow boiling pot?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/12/2018 at 7:50 PM, Carborendum said:

So, what conditions do you see in the Book of Mormon that didn't exist in earlier years of the Book of Mormon which parallel to our day?

What do we see today that didn't exist in earlier generations of the Church or the United States?

 

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Somewhat answers my question. What I'm trying to differentiate are the conditions that will signal the second coming as opposed to the same old evil that the world has always seen.  

I myself have never been able to really draw a line.  The wording of various prophecies are quite lacking in detail. And many people's feelings on the matter are inconsistent with statistics.  I guess I'm just wondering if anyone out there has any more definitive ideas of the "conditions of the last days."

At what point is that going to be so bad that the trigger will be pulled so to speak?

Or is it just the frog in a slow boiling pot?

The emphasized portion provides further understanding. I think the whole concept of a "thief in the night" is probably why various prophecies are vague rather than detailed; although, as we draw closer to God and have his mind, heart, and will I think what was vague will be more clear.  I, obviously, have not reached that yet. I also don't think the conditions are meant to be different, but similar as to provide us signs to look for.

1) Zion being established is one of the conditions that signal the Savior is coming, and the following statement, "I believe that would have to be after the fall of the US" is something I am in agreement with. I, personally am not able to see how Zion could be established in our current political climate -- especially with members of the Church who attack the prophet and the Church with regards to different policies and actions.

2) That is why I believe the political state of government is a sign of the second coming drawing nigh. My response with government is that the political state will restrict religious freedom, and it appears in the Book of Mormon, (before Christ came) in comparison to the established government by Nephi, Mosiah, King Benjamin, Mosiah and Alma allowed for religious freedom where Zion could be established -- if need be.

3) One condition I think is different though than the Book of Mormon (but relates to the Spirit being removed) is that "opposition" is being removed. Examples I can see today: gender is no longer male and female (we are neither, its just human and we can choose our gender), obviously love/lust are no longer seen as separate by many (one body -- if you love some one its ok to be intimate, its natural, its OK, nothing wrong -- love/lust are more now one body), and others

I would say a "frog in a slow boiling pot" is accurate -- small and simple means toward wickedness. We will also have small and simple means toward righteousness.

4) In previous eras (Book of Mormon), did people have a place to run to before destruction? Zion will be a refuge for those who want to live and keep the commandments of God. Those who do not will not seek it for protection as they know they will not be able to exercise their wickedness and thus perish in all the tumult. This will be a refuge for member and non-member alike who love God and are willing to keep the laws of the land -- theology (which now so many people say is the worst form of government -- religious -- even members knock it which is in part a huge irony).

My belief, the trigger is for us to prepared, and for the world to remove "opposition" -- one body.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is something about people that we love speculation.  Indeed it is fun to speculate about new ward boundaries and callings - especially leadership callings like Bishop, Stake President and Apostles.  However, speculation can become quite annoying to all those that know.  For example it is most annoying when; to have just been given a call but not sustained yet; to have some good member come and say something like, "Have you been called to be the new Bishop?"

Here is my advice about the second coming - If you are not having clear impressions specific to what you need to ready and prepare - Seriously - time is running out - you need some major repentance.  If you think his return is so close that you can quit paying your mortgage - Seriously -- you are out of touch and in need of major repentance.  If you are even a little in the dark on this matter - repentance is still a good idea.  If you think you have it all figured out and are not concerned - Yah you need to repent big time.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/5/2018 at 11:21 PM, 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.

If parts of the Book of Mormon are not historically accurate, shouldn't the LDS Church explain this?  For example, if Jesus did
not really visit the Nephites in 'America', then wouldn't manual teachings be wrong and misleading?

Thanks,
Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theplains said:

If parts of the Book of Mormon are not historically accurate, shouldn't the LDS Church explain this?  For example, if Jesus did
not really visit the Nephites in 'America', then wouldn't manual teachings be wrong and misleading?

Thanks,
Jim

man-on-dry-meadow-picking-450w-107740631.jpg.d1b9ef50bc3f8ee1246b98747a64a1ec.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, theplains said:

If parts of the Book of Mormon are not historically accurate, shouldn't the LDS Church explain this?  For example, if Jesus did
not really visit the Nephites in 'America', then wouldn't manual teachings be wrong and misleading?

Thanks,
Jim

Often terms are used loosely and as such create more misdirection than understanding.  For example - when we say that a certain study is scientific - what does that mean?  What is the standard that makes a given paper in theoretical Physics as opposed to fantasy?  Some have the mistaken idea that if an event is documented - it is by the documentation - historic.  But there is another concept.  In short it is the perspective.   The Book of Mormon is about G-d dealing with prophets.  That is a kind of historical context - but do we really want to call it historic?  Let me use an example.  

Are the talks given at General Conference - historic?  The subject matter is specific to our day, place and circumstance.  But there is very little about political conflicts, not much social difficulties,  not much about scientific discoveries.  In fact one might be hard pressed to determine much of anything that apply specifically to our unique place in history.   What makes something history?  There are things being covered in the news - are those things historic?  According to some points of view - some things may look historic on the surface - but are they really?  Did Russia interfere in our election - Democrats think so.  Republican are of the impression that Democrats interfered more than the Russians.  What then is historic?  Are opinions of history - historic?  If there is a reference to something that happened - is that historic?  If a reference to an event in history leaves out critical information about the event (so critical that understanding of the event may not be accurate?) is that historic.

What is historic?  It is historic that Joseph translated an ancient record of the Nephits on golden plates.  Or is it historic that Joseph looked at a stone in a hat and had impressions that he dictated to someone else.  But let me give another example in a question.  Did Moses perform miracles  in Egypt in the exact manner as written in scripture or is it possible that what is written in scripture is not actually intended to be historic but to create and narrative of things to take place when the righteous are delivered when Jesus returns.  Is Passover a historic narrative - or is it intended as prophetic?

I have suggested that scripture is divinely inspired prophesy.  That does not mean that something did not happen at a particular time in history.  What it means is that if someone insists on using the perspective of history - they will miss the intended divine message.  So I see the argument of historic as an excuse to not see the prophetic message.  Those concerned with historic accuracy are missing the point and purpose.    But then that is why it was written in such a manner - so that those that will not see cannot see and those that will not hear cannot hear.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Often terms are used loosely ...

Traveler,

He simply wants to use the terms as he sees fit for the sole purpose of sowing contention.  He isn't seeking enlightenment.  That is why he refuses to acknowledge the correct understanding that you and many others have already tried to explain.  Instead, he twists the words worse than the mainstream media just so he can feel superior.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, theplains said:

If parts of the Book of Mormon are not historically accurate, shouldn't the LDS Church explain this?  For example, if Jesus did
not really visit the Nephites in 'America', then wouldn't manual teachings be wrong and misleading?

Thanks,
Jim

If parts of the Bible aren't historically accurate in a completely literal sense, shouldn't all of Christianity have to explain that?  For example, if science can show that the world wasn't literally created in 6x24 hours, doesn't that mean that the entirety of Christianity is bunk?  Cause frankly, science does show those facts, and if I were to a "this all much true in the literal sense!" type of person, Genesis alone would cause me to discard all of Christianity.  

Jim: your questions here are extremely hypocritical.  Stop trying to prostylize again and again using such un-Christ-like methods.  All you're succeeding in doing is convincing me you follow someone other than Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, theplains said:

If parts of the Book of Mormon are not historically accurate, shouldn't the LDS Church explain this?  For example, if Jesus did
not really visit the Nephites in 'America', then wouldn't manual teachings be wrong and misleading?

Thanks,
Jim

Seriously dude you need to stop.  Jane Doe never said that ANY part of the Book of Mormon wasn't historically accurate.  So please stop with the insinuations.  This is my only warning as the admin on this site.  

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...
 Share