When to question the Prophet?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Won't happen. We will not see anything startling with a corporate minded church. Those things would be made through a creeping mindset. The startling announcement won't happen.

If it did, one would look at it in context. All things must be considered in context. I'm not certain the Church still believes in the Jackson County apocalyptic stuff any longer. We have shied away from it.

I agree that it almost certainly won't happen. But that's not what Lingo's asking.

Let's say, contrary to all reason and suppositions that indicate otherwise, that he DID get up and tell us to pack our bags and hop off to Independence. What then?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

In today's world, I doubt we'll see the President ever require something outlandish. At most, we might see something "dated" but for the most part, we are so "corporate" and "PC" that fears of something outlandish are unfounded.

It seems more we lack imagination, as opposed to Joseph Smith, who was perhaps the most innovative and charismatic modern era religious person the world may ever know. He broke with many of the traditions and set "new" standards.

You must be unfamiliar with some of the prophecies pertaining to the last days.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by All-American

I agree that it almost certainly won't happen. But that's not what Lingo's asking.

Let's say, contrary to all reason and suppositions that indicate otherwise, that he DID get up and tell us to pack our bags and hop off to Independence. What then?

As a question such as that is contextual, the context is relevant. Because it won't happen in a vacuum.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

You must be unfamiliar with some of the prophecies pertaining to the last days.

Are you trolling?

Why would you be so presumptuous that you would suppose I am unfamiliar of the texts concerning apocalyptic warnings in the Old Testament, New Testament, D&C, BoM and other varities?

Apocalyptic prognostications have been around at various times, including the time of Isaiah, pre-exile, Jeremiah exilic period, and post-exilic period, including the apocalyptic teachings of Christ and of the Revelator. Exactly which apocalyptic teaching would like to discuss.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Are you trolling?

Why would you be so presumptuous that you would suppose I am unfamiliar of the texts concerning apocalyptic warnings in the Old Testament, New Testament, D&C, BoM and other varities?

Apocalyptic prognostications have been around at various times, including the time of Isaiah, pre-exile, Jeremiah exilic period, and post-exilic period, including the apocalyptic teachings of Christ and of the Revelator. Exactly which apocalyptic teaching would like to discuss.

There is ample evidence in my mind that the days of the church requiring unusual sacrifices are not only in our past.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

There is ample evidence in my mind that the days of the church requiring unusual sacrifices are not only in our past.

I'll quote Pelagius's words to make a point:

"One thing that always worries me from an empirical perspective (I am after-all an empirical economist so I really can’t help myself) is the “matching of signs” methodology people focus on and use to suggest the second coming is close. Most of the signs in scripture are general enough or at least can be interpreted in a general enough way that they can be applied to virtually every moment in history (and it seems like they have been). What am I missing in terms of the usefulness of things like “signs” of the second coming? Why might they be important? Does Joseph Smith Matthew focus on the importance of signs or is the chapters focus on something else"

At one time, I found apocalyptic literature fascinating, but early NT saints thought the Second Coming was upon them until the destruction of the temple. Scholars discount apocalyptic literature because they don't believe God would give existing saints something meant for three thousand years later, unless it is meant to be sacramentalized.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

At one time, I found apocalyptic literature fascinating, but early NT saints thought the Second Coming was upon them until the destruction of the temple. Scholars discount apocalyptic literature because they don't believe God would give existing saints something meant for three thousand years later, unless it is meant to be sacramentalized.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said, unless you're suggesting the events of the Second Coming are not to be taken literally.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said, unless you're suggesting the events of the Second Coming are not to be taken literally.

How did you glean that from my words? Speaking of King of Distortions.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How did you glean that from my words? Speaking of King of Distortions.

More like King of Confusion. My brain is too small to comprehend what your point was.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As a question such as that is contextual, the context is relevant. Because it won't happen in a vacuum.

Okay, take the present context. Let's suppose that THIS october, President Hinckley gets up and announces that we're to go back to Jackson county. It's strange, it's unusual, and completely out of the ordinary. Then what?

The fact that it's unlikely isn't the point. I think it is about as likely to happen as BYU switching to the option, or the Utes winning the Super Bowl. Besides, I'd be careful in saying what will never happen-- Bruce R. McKonkie seemed to think some things wouldn't happen before the millenium and had an awful big egg on his face when he turned out to be wrong.