2. D&C Section 84:1-5, 31 (Sep. 1832): "A revelation of Jesus Christ unto his servant Joseph Smith, Jun.... Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city of New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house...which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed...."
1. Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; 2. And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. 3. For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations. 4. And is shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war. 5. And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation. 6. And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations; 7. That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of the Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.
4. D&C Section 88: 87-88 (27 Dec 1832): For not many days hence and the earth shall tremble and reel to and fro as a drunken man; and the sun shall hide his face, and shall refuse to give light; and the moon shall be bathed in blood; and the stars shall become exceedingly angry, and shall cast themselves down as a fig that falleth from off a fig-tree.
5. Hist. Vol. 1, pp. 315-316. On January 4, 1833 Joseph Smith said, "And now I am prepared to say by the authority of Jesus Christ, that not many years shall pass away before the United States shall present such a scene of bloodshed as has not a parallel in the history of our nation; pestilence, hail, famine and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel from the north country. ...therefore, 'Fear God, and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgement is come.' ...there are those now living upon the earth whose eyes shall not be closed in death until they see all these things, which I have spoken, fulfilled." (This is also recorded in Teachings, pp. 17-18)
6. Hist. Vol. 1, p. 455. In a letter to "the Exiled Saints in Missouri," Joseph Smith wrote: Therefore, this is my counsel, that you retain your lands, even unto the utmost, and employ every lawful means to seek redress of your enemies; and pray to God day and night to return you in peace and safety to the lands of your inheritance; and when the judge fail you, appeal unto the executive; and when the executive fail you; appeal to the president; and when the president fail you, and all things also fail you but God alone, and you continue to weary Him with your importunings, as the poor woman did the unjust judge. He will not fail you to execute judgement upon your enemies, and to avenge His own elect that cry unto Him day and night. Behold, He will not fail you. He will come with ten thousand of his saints, and all His adversaries shall be destroyed with the breath of His lips.
7. D&C Section 97:19 (Aug. 2, 1833): "And the nations of the earth shall honor her, and shall say, Surely Zion is the city of our God, and surely Zion cannot fall, neither be moved out her place, for God is there, and the hand of the Lord is there..."
8. D&C Section 100:13 (Oct 12, 1833): And now I give unto you a word concerning Zion. Zion shall be redeemed, although she is chastened for a little season.
How many failed/false prophecies does it take to make a false prophet? One. Here we have eight failed prophecies by Joseph Smith. Would not eight false prophecies then make Smith a false prophet?
24 comments:
1. D&C Section 57 (July 1831): You make the common error here of assuming you know the timeline of prophecy when no timeline is given. Independence will be the inheritance of the saints and a gathering place. Just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it will never happen.
Thus nothing is proven false, only not yet fulfilled.
2. D&C Section 84:1-5, 31 (Sep. 1832): In this you are confusing commandments and Prophecy. Verses 1-4 are a command given to the church to build up Zion. This command was later rescinded as stated in D&C 124: 49-54.
The prophecy was verse 5, and was restated in verse 31, and consisted only of the following:
a. house shall be built unto the Lord
b. a cloud shall rest upon it
c. which shall fill the house.
This prophecy was fulfilled in 1836 when the Kirtland Temple was completed and the glory of the Lord rested upon it and filled the house. This is recorded in the 29th chapter of the second volume of the History of the Church, as kept by Joseph Smith and his scribes. You can read it here, on page 1109.
This prophecy is fulfilled.
3. D&C Section 87 (25 Dec 1832): You make a common error here in claiming that this prophecy speaks only of the American Civil War, and in assuming you know God’s timeline. On this point you claim that “shortly come to pass” means in a few years. But this same phrase is used at the beginning of Revelation (1: 1) to indicate that the following prophecies would ‘shortly come to pass.’ Has all that book been fulfilled?
As to the meaning of the prophecy, let us look at a few things.
a. It is ‘concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass.’ - Note that the prophecy states directly that it is speaking of a plurality of wars, not just one.
b.Beginning at the rebellion of South Caroline – The civil war began with South Carolina’s rebellion.
c. ‘eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls’ – there has never been a bloodier or more costly war fought by the United States. An estimated 620,000 people died, with countless others injured and dozens of cities decimated.
d. ‘war will be poured out on all nations, beginning at this place’ – All one has to do is look at history to see that the world has been involved in armed conflict for the last 150 years. World Wars are rare, but there has rarely been a year without armed conflict in many countries.
e. ‘For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States’ – Any questions here?
f. ‘Southern States will call on…the nation of Great Britain’ – again, look to history.
g. Great Britain ‘shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations’ – Now, if we consider the entirety of the British Empire at the time this was stated I don’t think there is much question that there were parts that were invaded.
h. 'and then war shall be poured out upon all nations’ – Just for the United States, The wars with the American Indians, Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, etc. This doesn’t include the many wars that didn’t involve the US.
i. ‘slaves shall rise up against their masters’ – This was part of the Civil War, but it was long after that before slavery was done away as a world institution. In addition, the Civil Rights movement is seen as some to be a fulfillment of this.
j. ‘the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves’ – the remnants refers to the native populations. This happened in India, China, South America, Central America, etc.
k. ‘shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation’ – The natives are still vexing the gentiles. In this case the gentiles refer to Europeans, and while they still hold political power in many countries, the native populations still rebel, still protest, and are still constantly being a thorn in the side of Europeans.
l. 'And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake…made to feel the wrath…of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations’ – Since the time of the Civil War there have been many natural disasters recorded, including everything listed here.
So, when we shed the false idea that this prophecy speaks only about the Civil War we see that it was not only fulfilled, but was fulfilled in great detail.
4. D&C Section 88: 87-88 (27 Dec 1832): Again, an assumption that you know the timeline of God. We are simply waiting. So, once again, it is not proven false, only unfulfilled.
5. Hist. Vol. 1, pp. 315-316. On January 4, 1833 Joseph Smith said: Every single one of these has happened. The Civil War was a scene of bloodshed unparalleled in US history. Famine and pestilence followed the ravages of this war. Earthquakes have rocked various areas of the United States. And since Hailstorms were not commonly recorded in the 1800’s we have no real evidence that refutes them. Again, fulfilled.
6. Hist. Vol. 1, p. 455. In a letter to "the Exiled Saints in Missouri," Joseph Smith wrote: The enemies of the saints were decimated in the Civil War, especially Missouri. And since the quote never once says that they will retain their lands, that is a moot point. They were being counseled not to sell their lands, which they didn’t.
7. D&C Section 97:19 (Aug. 2, 1833): Of course you fail to quote the verses previous to this, where God states “if Zion do these things she shall prosper, and spread herself and become very glorious, very great, and very terrible.” (verse 18) Clearly this is a promise, the fulfillment of which was, and is, contingent upon the saints being faithful to the commands of God. As they were not the promise was not fulfilled. In verses 6-7 the Lord also says “…nevertheless, there are those that must needs be chastened, and their works shall be made known. The ax is laid at the root of the trees; and every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire. I, the Lord, have spoken it.” Clearly he knew very well what was happening, and was already explaining to the saints in Kirtland the reason for it.
8. D&C Section 100:13 (Oct 12, 1833): Again assuming the timing of God. Zion cannot be established until God has raised up “a pure people, that will serve [Him] in righteousness” (verse 16) and it is not our place to judge when that has happened.
So, what you have actually listed here is
a. 1 command that was later rescinded
b. 1 promise, whose conditions were not met
c. 3 prophecies that are still awaiting fulfillment
d. 4 prophecies that have been fulfilled
So much for proof.
So that the readers can see for themselves, here is a link to D&C 57.
http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/57
The area of "Zion" is now a huge city with no Mormon control whatsoever. D&C said that it IS (specific time -- i.e., "now" being the date the prophecy given. It doesn't say it WILL BE appointed and consecrated, rather "God" says it "IS" such. Vs 5 says they will obtain the land as an everlasting inheritance. They do not have it now, and it was taken away from them over 170 years ago. So you contend that God is going to destroy everything there and in the FUTURE give it to the Mormons? How do you explain the present tense "IS"?
Section 84 is about the temple lot in Independence, MO, not Kirtland. Read the context. You are the one confuse. The prophecy failed.
By the way, commands from God are considered “prophetic” as He gives them through his prophets.
D&C 87 was indeed seen by Mormons AFTER the fact to be about the American Civil War. The description in the prophecy of Northern States and Southern States can mean no other war, especially since it says it will begin in South Carolina. Smith was merely regurgitating the news reports of the time, the political situation of the time. All the news and political reports and speeches of the time forecast the war, which almost began at the time this “prophecy” was given —convenient to the political situation, but it didn’t happen when Smith thought it was, or when anyone at the time thought it would. And any claim of a war will include that it will kill many people — a no-brainer there.
He said that wars will begin “at that place,” i.e. South Carolina. And that North and South will be divided.
The “shortly come to pass” in Revelation has a context of the time taking place in the future history in the prophecy itself. The context of D&C87 has historically by the LDS been applied to the American Civil War, and you lie to claim otherwise.
The prophecy says the war will spread from South Carolina to involve the whole world, and that slaves would rise up against their masters in this war.
Beginning at your paragraph d, you begin to claim all the wars since then had their beginning in our Civil War, and their beginning was in South Carolina. Great Britain had an animosity against the USA at the time this was written, having lost to us again less than 20 years earlier. They did NOT get involved in our war, and to reach out to WWI and WWII as fulfilling this prophecy is total eisegesis, which no one ever claimed until recently when they began trying to cover up Smith’s false prophecies. Your whole comment from d on is horrible eisegesis, which you really need in order to maintain denial of the truth.
The rest of your comments will not be posted until I can answer them, and I have to go to band practice. Back on the net tomorrow. Please don’t add any more comments so that I can catch up.
D&C 88:87-88 was given in the context of the time, and it was understood by all to mean a short time from when it was given. Smith had a habit of giving such “prophecies” so as to keep the members in fear. To claim that the prophecy was not meant for that particular period in history is to deny the context in an effort to buttress the claim that Smith was a true prophet.
Hist. Vol. 1, pp. 315-316: While the Civil war was unparalleled at the time, again the Civil War was inevitable as everyone of the time knew, and war was close to breaking out at the time. To prophecy that a lot of bloodshed would happen in war is a no-brainer, as is to suggest there may be pestilence and famine following wars in that time period. BUT, the prophecy also claims that the massive bloodshed was not going to be due just to war, rather there was to be pestilence, hail, famine and earthquake will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land, to open and prepare the way for the return of the lost tribes of Israel. Earthquakes and hail have ALWAYS happened in the USA. To suggest that just because hail storms weren’t recorded and therefore didn’t happened is totally absurd, because the same types of storms which cause hail have always been part of the weather systems in the USA. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of hail sweeping away a “wicked generation,” nor of earthquakes doing such in the USA. Deaths from hail are rare, and from earthquakes they have been relatively minimal. And, by the way, there is no such thing as “the lost tribes of Israel.”
Hist. Vol. 1, p. 455 The passage says that they were to retain their lands “even unto the utmost,” while in reality they abandoned them quite quickly. But this isn’t the big issue. The issue is this: He will not fail you to execute judgement upon your enemies, and to avenge His own elect that cry unto Him day and night. Behold, He will not fail you. He will come with ten thousand of his saints, and all His adversaries shall be destroyed with the breath of His lips. As I noted, your “God” never destroyed the enemies of the LDS of the time, nor did he come with 10,000 of his saints to destroy them, which is why they didn't retain their lands!
D&C Section 97:19. Quoting the previous “if” verses doesn’t change the problem. The problem is that this prophecy was given 13 days AFTER the LDS newspaper presses were destroyed and leading LDS officials tarred and feathered, then run out of town. “Zion” had already been “moved out of her place” and “Zion” had already fallen, and yet the LDS “God” apparently was unaware this happened 13 days earlier when he gave this prophecy.
D&C Section 100:13. The “Zion” that was there was never redeemed, and that prophecy was given by Smith to build morale. There was no suggestion in that prophecy that there were any “ifs” about it, any conditions surrounding the promise. That “Zion” is now populated by generations of people, a whole new culture and civilization and yet you think your god-man who lives on another planet will destroy all those now living there, destroy all the buildings, homes, etc and replant a new “pure people, that will serve [Him] in righteousness”?!?! And you really, really believe this?
The context of D&C 100 was those living there then, and that he would raise THEM up as his “pure people…” in that Zion, not a new one sometime in a distant future. Smith was trying to build up their hope by lying to them, and you are intentionally practicing eisegesis with these passages so as to deny any failure of prophecy.
Try Part 3 — you’ll have a much more difficult time explaining away those prophecies.
D&C 57: 5
"...Behold, this is wisdom, that they may obtain it for an everlasting inheritance."
You will note that all the present tense is a command given to the saints. They were command to buy the land, to establish the saints in the area. They did this so this it may be an inheritance. It doesn't say it is an inheritance, but that it can be. Yes, we still believe it will be, based on other prophecy.
Section 84
Did I ever deny that this section was about the temple lot in Independence? I don't recall that. I recall saying that the section was primary a command to build in Independence. However, I also noted that the only actual prophecy is that a temple would be built, which would imply that the command was given in part to fulfill this prophecy. When that was no longer a viable option the prophecy was fulfilled through the building of a different temple.
And if you are going to claim that all commandments count as prophecies you are going to have problems. Samuel, through his prophetic calling, commanded King Saul to destroy the Amalakites, including the animals. As Saul did not do this than Samuel's prophecy is false and Samuel is proven a false prophet. The Israelites were, under Moses and Joshua, commanded to destroy all the former inhabitants of Canaan, but this was never done, proving Moses a false prophet.
Be careful what standard you hold people to, or you may not like where it leads.
Section 87
It is not eisegesis to list several wars when the prophecy states that wars would be poured out.
Verse 1: "Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the WARS that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina"
Clearly the prophecy is telling the people that a period of frequent and continuous war was about to begin, with the first war beginning is South Carolina.
As to historical application, you should read the following.
http://scriptures.byu.edu/#:t30d52$88169:c12e571d (given in 1879)
http://scriptures.byu.edu/#:t3d0a2$88170:c12e571d (given in 1884)
It is clear that the saints, at least as early as 1879, understood this prophecy to apply to much more than the Civil War.
You can get a more complete list of all the times that this section was referenced by church leaders going back into the 1800's: http://scriptures.byu.edu/#::c12e57
So, do you any quotes from church leaders that actually say it only applies to the Civil War?
Section 88: 87-88
It would be nice if you could show an authoritative source, such as an apostle, that declared these things were to be fulfilled as soon as you claim. Saying the members thought this is meaningless. Many of the early saints thought the Second Coming was going to be only a few years away. This does not mean that the apostles ever intended them to believe so.
Concerning this prophecy, John Taylor said "but there will yet be wars pass through these United States, and through other nations, until it will be mournful to hear the report of the bloodshed, the sorrow and trouble that will be caused thereby, (Isa. 28:19) as also by pestilence, (D&C 63:24) famine and earthquake, and the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds, and storms and tempests, D&C 88:87-91 etc., etc." http://scriptures.byu.edu/#:t3a998$88664:c12e5887j1
He clearly saw it as being in the future.
Orson Pratt pointed out that this prophecy could not be fulfilled until after the gospel had gone to the nations (as stated in verse 81) and he states that these things "great events...have not yet transpired" but would in the future. http://scriptures.byu.edu/#:t2712b$88663:c12e5887j1
So, who said it was to be fulfilled in just a few years?
Hist. Vol. 1, pp. 315-316
On this one I will agree that I was somewhat in error. To say that it was all fulfilled with the Civil was is not accurate, and while we have seen the beginnings of the fulfillment, this is one that should rightly be called unfulfilled, as we are waiting for it.
And just to be clear, I never once argued that since there is no record of hail storms they didn't happen. In fact, I said just the opposite. I stated that a lack of record is not proof they didn't happen, and thus, but logical extension, if they did happen we wouldn't know about it.
Hist. Vol. 1, p. 455
They were commanded to retained the deeds of their lands. They never relinquished their legal rights, and so this command was obeyed.
The Civil War most certainly decimated the enemies of the saints, showing the judgements of God. However, the coming of God with angels and 10,000 saints is still in the future, though the time is fast approaching.
Section 97:19
If you read everything I said you will see that God clearly knew exactly what was happening and told Joseph Smith that there were those in Missouri that needed to be chastened and would be removed if they didn't repent. The promise could have still been claimed, which was the intent of Zion's camp, which was sent to redeem Zion.
You attempt to claim that a single event proves what God knew is illogical. Just because God did not go into detail as to what had happened does not void His promise made in this revelation.
Section 100: 13
"Zion shall be redeemed, although she is chastened for a little season."
Now who is engaging in eisegesis in an attempt to prove themselves right? Again, you claim to know the intended timeline with not evidence to support it other than your assertion that you are right.
D&C 57. that they may obtain it for an everlasting inheritance.
The obtained the land, but it didn’t become an “everlasting inheritance.” If it was everlasting from the time they obtained it then they would still own it. Don’t cop out to say it will be future. The context was from the time they obtained it.
D&C 84 You stated that all the things in this passage about the temple in Independence was fulfilled in the temple in Kirtland: This prophecy was fulfilled in 1836 when the Kirtland Temple was completed and the glory of the Lord rested upon it and filled the house.. That is claiming that the cited prophecy was about Kirtland. You are now saying that it was about “a temple” rather than Independence, but the plain reading of the text is plainly about the temple to be built in Independence. The entire text is about Independence. To say otherwise is eisegesis to CYA.
D&C 87 So you are saying that all the wars since the Civil War had their start in South Carolina. The way you people twist a prophecy to avoid the obvious leaves me incredulous.
Oh, and you didn’t even address the issue of the wiping out of unbelievers by hail and earthquake. That is an obvious failed part of the prophecy.
D&C 88 I don’t have the time to research to satisfy your demand, but I will point out that the context of the entire section is about what was applicable to those of the time, and not of a future generation. To those who are able to read and comprehend, here is a link to D&C 88
http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/88 Notice at vs.74 who this is directed at: you, who are the first laborers in this last kingdom, These are the people who are to follow the commands in the succeeding verses because “not many days hence” the noted things will take place. Again, one has to practice eisegesis to make this apply to some vague future time when the passage is directed at those of the time it was given. Those cited teachers were also practicing eisegesis because the plain reading of the text was that this would take place during the time of those who received the teaching. Of course for Pratt, and Taylor, even accepting it face value and saying it was future would mean in their future because it was addressed to those alive at the time.
Hist Vol 1 You are still implying that we would know about hail back them because they would have written about it if there was. That is nonsense, since there really was not much weather recording until much later in the 19th century, and even then it was in more populated areas. And the Civil War “decimated the enemies of the Saints”??!?! Really? Where are the statistics for those who where anti-Mormon who were killed in the war? You just made that up.
And the context of p.455 was at that particular time. CONTEXT. Of course Mormons are used to taking things out of context, because that’s how they treat the Bible in order to claim it supports their teachings.
I have to stop for now; I have a conference to get to and won’t be able to respond until tomorrow afternoon, if you can wait for further comment.
Thanks for your patience waiting for my responses and such due to my needing to be elsewhere!
D&C 97:19 I read what you said, but you practice eisegesis. It is plain as day that “Zion” was already “moved out of her place” 13 days prior to Joseph giving this revelation. The problem is that he had no way of knowing what had happened, and he was claiming this was from God. There is no way this would have come from God if God already knew what happened there — it would be totally nonsensical to give such a prophecy.
D&C 100:13 Me practicing eisegesis?!?!? I’m taking the passage literally as it was intended to be understood by those who heard it. First it was obvious a CYA move because of the false prophecy of 97:19. BUT, Smith never expected to be forced to totally leave Missouri.
It is you who are making assertions that this is prophecy just hasn’t been fulfilled yet rather than acknowledging that it failed.
D&C 57. that they may obtain it for an everlasting inheritance.
“The context was from the time they obtained it.”
And the context of the Israelites inheriting Canaan was from the time they obtained it. Actually, it was given to Abraham for an everlasting inheritance, in a present context. Yet Abraham never owned all the land and even the Israelites never owned everything they were supposed to. More than once they were driven from the land, and for a few centuries were legally barred from entering it.
Again, watch out for the double standard.
D&C 84 “That is claiming that the cited prophecy was about Kirtland.”
No, it is saying that the prophecy was not specific enough to mandate a specific temple, and thus building a temple in Kirtland was a fulfillment of it.
“The entire text is about Independence. To say otherwise is eisegesis to CYA.”
Yes, that is the context of the revelation. However, if you pay attention to the language used you can see that verse 5 is an aside meant to explain the command just given. It does not carry the same context.
However, if you insist on apply it all only to Independence Missouri than you must apply this as the promised blessing for the faithfulness of the saints, and not as a prophecy. Later in the revelation the warning and punishment for unfaithfulness is given.
“And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received—Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written—That they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom; otherwise there remaineth a scourge and judgment to be poured out upon the children of Zion. For shall the children of the kingdom pollute my holy land? Verily, I say unto you, Nay.” (54-59)
In other words, if the saints did not live up fully to the commands and requirements of God they would be driven from Zion for only the truly faithful can claim the blessings of Zion. So, reading the full revelation we see a promise/punishment situation, or what I might call a dependent prophecy. If the saints were faithful Zion would be built, a temple constructed, and all the other blessings listed. However, if they were not faithful they would be driven from the place and would have to wait until a time when they had achieved the faithfulness required.
Either way, the passage was very accurate. Either the prophecy was an aside and was fulfilled with the building of the Kirtland temple. Or it was a dependent prophecy and the punishment side was fulfilled when the saints failed to live to the required standard.
D&C 87 “So you are saying that all the wars since the Civil War had their start in South Carolina.”
No, and you should try not to twist my words. I also have to wonder if you even looked at the references I posted.
What I said is a period of continuous and frequent war would cover the earth. The first war that would make the start of this period, was the Civil War, which had its start in South Carolina. The other wars did not originate in South Carolina, but they are very much a part of the period of warfare that was being prophesied of.
“Oh, and you didn’t even address the issue of the wiping out of unbelievers by hail and earthquake. That is an obvious failed part of the prophecy.”
Considering there is no statement that unbelievers would be wiped out I see no need to address this. However, the references to storms and earthquakes are simply stating that during the period of warfare the earth itself would, in a sense, join in. The reference to the end of all nations alludes to the second coming, when all the wicked are destroyed and all earthly nations are brought under the kingship of Christ. This is the mark the end of the period of warfare, and it is still in the future.
D&C 88 “the entire section is about what was applicable to those of the time”
And this is why it describes in great detail the event of the second coming. The fact is that God has told people of the far distant future many times to offer them comfort, which it does. The knowledge of the eventual triumph of God is very comforting. This section is entirely applicable to those alive at the time it was given because the last days and the second coming are applicable to all people who have ever, or will ever live. It was given, as it says, as the “‘olive leaf’ … plucked from the Tree of Paradise, the Lord’s message of peace to us.”
You cannot claim to know the timing of God unless He has given it, which he rarely does.
Hist Vol 1 “You are still implying that we would know about hail back them because they would have written about it if there was.”
I am sorry, but you are making me question your reading ability by your continuous harping on this when I never made this claim. What I said was “And since Hailstorms were NOT commonly recorded in the 1800’s we have NO real evidence that refutes them.” In other words, they most likely would not have made a record of them, and so we cannot know if they did or didn’t happen. Now, when you confused that the first time I clarified and stated “that a LACK of record is NOT proof they DIDN’T happen, and thus, but logical extension, IF they DID happen we WOULDN’T know about it.”
So, to say it a third time; because the extreme lack of written records regarding hail storms we can neither confirm nor deny that they did or did not happen.
“And the Civil War “decimated the enemies of the Saints”??!?! Really? Where are the statistics for those who where anti-Mormon who were killed in the war? You just made that up.”
The statistics are there. Read what happened to Missouri in the Civil War. It was the scene of the worst violence. Rural Jackson County itself was practically burned to the ground by General Thomas Ewing, Jr. as a measure to flush out Confederate sympathizers. Independence Missouri was the site of two different battles in which hundreds were killed. The Guerilla warfare between the Jayhawkers and bushwhackers resulting in the killing of thousands, and this began even before the Civil War.
The enemies of the saints were not simple anti-Mormons. It was the state of Missouri, which most certainly felt the wrath of God and was decimated during the Civil War.
“And the context of p.455 was at that particular time.”
No, it was not confined to that time, any more than any other warning from a prophet is confined.
Take, for instance, Isaiah chapter 13, in which the immediate context of the fall of Babylon. It even identifies the Medes as the ones that would destroy Babylon. Verse 6 says “for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.” By your reasoning Babylon should have been invaded by the Medes in the lifetime of Isaiah. Yet Isaiah spoke these words in the mid 700s BC (he began prophesying around 740). Yet the Medes did not invade and destroy Babylon until 538, about 200 years later. Now, we know the prophecy was a true prophecy because we know that the Medes did in fact destroy Babylon. It doesn’t matter that it took 200 years, it happened.
So, Joseph Smith may have said that not many years would pass, but this would mean nothing regarding the establishing of a specific timeline, any more than Isaiah saying “the day of the Lord is at hand” proved a specific timeline.
D&C 97:19 It is plain as day that “Zion” was already “moved out of her place” 13 days prior to Joseph giving this revelation.
You really need to brush up on your history. In July the saints were forced to sign an agreement that half would leave the country by year’s end, and the other half by April. They were not, at this time, run out of town. They remained in Jackson county and Independence for several months trying to petition the governor and the courts. It was on November 5 that the saints were driven from the county, many suffering from exposure do to the cold weather.
So, the fact that the expulsion is not mentioned in August is perfectly understandable. The fact that this revelation begins by stating that some in Zion would need to be chastened shows clearly that God knew exactly what was going on, and was warning what would happen if they did not repent. Even after they were driven out there was still the hope of redeeming Zion as is seen in the forming of Zion’s camp.
D&C 100:13 “I’m taking the passage literally as it was intended to be understood by those who heard it.”
And what are your credentials for making this claim? What gives you the right to say what the intended meaning of this passage was? Were you there? Did you talk to Joseph Smith or Sidney Rigdon personally? Maybe you are claiming divine revelation on the matter.
The fact is that you have no credibility in making such a claim. Honestly, I get tired of people who so clearly have an agenda claiming to have the final word regarding the meaning of things that they don’t even believe in.
God said He would raise up a pure people. He never once said this would be the people currently living. Joseph Smith, and indeed all the saints, would have taken comfort in the knowledge that Zion would be redeemed. They would not have assumed that this meant that they would be the ones to redeem it, but that it would eventually happen. The saints continue to take comfort in this promise, and all the faithful look forward to the day when it will be redeemed.
Shematwater,
You sure love to ignore context. But that’s the only way you can excuse failed prophecies.
In other words, they most likely would not have made a record of them, and so we cannot know if they did or didn’t happen. [in reference to hail storms]. You are sooooo funny! Whether or not anyone recorded that hailstorms happened is irrelevant. They had to have happened because of weather which has always acted the same. They reported tornadoes and very often hail is in the storms which cause tornadoes. The point was, if there was such hailstorms as to wipe out unbelievers, I’m sure at least the MORMONS would have written about it as joyfully proclaiming the fulfillment of prophecy hail,. . . will sweep the wicked of this generation from off the face of the land. (The “wicked” would be unbelievers, since, biblically, believers were never referred to as “the wicked.”)
We’ve had our back and forth, and now I will let our readers decide which one of us is correct in our understanding of these prophecies. I now challenge you to excuse away the next list of false prophecies at:
http://watchmanvlds.blogspot.com/2014/11/joseph-smith-prophet-part-3.html
I think with this one you’ll have to take another look at your eisegesis of D&C 84.
Post a Comment