- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
My topic that I would like to get feedback on is the Apocalypse. I have several things that I have wondered about over the years and thought the reader’s of this forum might have some answers. My first question is “Why?” The simple answer I have is that it creates the need for religion in the first place, i.e., ‘Repent, because, just look, the end is coming!!’ Countless Christian sects and a few nutcases with sandwich signs have made this adage their mantra. And really, the LDS church is no different, because this has always been a core doctrine.
My second question is how do people feel about the Book of Revelations? From an LDS perspective, we take a strong stance about the origins of the scriptures; “the Bible is the word of God, so far as it is translated correctly.” This does not go as far as many denominations who take a literal view that the bible is the whole truth and nothing but the truth, thank goodness. However, it is still a very strong view, and accepts the determination of the early Christian fathers as to what constitutes Canon. The academic world disputes authorship of a number of New Testament books, including the Book of Revelations. Is it authentic? Is it inspired? Was it included simply as a ‘big stick’ to further the case of Christianity? Obviously, the tone and nature of the book is very different from the rest of Scripture.
The next piece in my line of thought deals with the role of societal change and upheaval. It seems to me that religions that embrace the “End is near!” concept see great success during periods of social upheaval. The fear of change becomes the catalyst for action. Indeed, the timing of the restoration at the beginning of the industrial revolution was key to the church’s early success. Today is again a period of fear and uncertainly and the church is seeing tremendous growth. One of my problems with this is the approach that this causes some people take. For example, I know someone who heard “The sky is falling” sermons as a kid and figured the end was near, and pretty much signed out of life and did not do any long term planning.
The imminent Apocalypse did not happen at the onset of the restoration, so the church had to adapt as had all of Christianity for 1800 years. No longer were we literally gathering to single spot to build the New Jerusalem. The church was forced to go west and take a long-term view. Many of us in growing up in the seventies figured that the end would come around the year 2000, because we were thinking in terms of major dispensations lasting 1000 years.
So, my observation as a cynic and person of little faith, is that the church today still focuses on preparing for the end, rather than choosing to speak out on issues that might be of concern for the long-term, environmental issues and population growth come to mind. My concern is that the short-term view is not in our best interests and negative in its attitude. I’m not arguing against prudence, but my feeling is that mankind has been around for a long time, much longer than our scriptural view, and that we can, must and will succeed in the long term. To me, this approach is a more positive and sustainable.
I’d like to react, particularly since you mentioned that you came out of the 70’s. I can identify with that. First, it doesn’t hurt to have oil in your lamp because apocalyptic events have continually happened throughout history- short of “
THEapocalypse.” You know, I’m more concerned that the Church seems to have lost it’s way on this. Instead of being on the watchtowers warning us of certain events…
The Church seems long in the tooth, on the defense, and little different from any other Church. It still carries the narrative doctrine that it was restored in preparation for the Second Coming, but continually shies away from any pronouncements that might shine too much light on itself.
Perhaps our banishment to Utah gave us a complex. Many of us revere the audacity that Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo Legion had shown at one time, particularly in defense of the constitution, and God having inspired the creation of this Country so that he could restore his Church, etc.. But instead of standing up for our place in history, perhaps the Utah complex has only inspired our leaders to run away from it.
Instead, we’re a “worldwide” Church now. Apparently we’re not an “American” Church. I guess we’re supposed to simply believe in Jesus, and be righteous and wait.
So much for our being a force for invigorating and participating with the catalyst that made our Church possible: the inception of the United States of America.
I know this sounds political by now…
But, I’m just a one time true believer, probably like yourself.
Okay, here’s how I look at it…it seems most folks participating on this forum have a slightly different twist/take on Mormonism than what might be called mainstream. As such, I think it is okay to question some teachings that the mainstream, iron rod TBM would accept as absolutely true. Fair so far?
Some of us might question the current popular take on the scriptures. Some might feel it’s possible that what the living prophet says about something today may change in the future — like polygamy and the priesthood issues. I think it’s fair to say that for those of us in our mid to late lives have seen dramatic change in teachings of the church. Heck, it wasn’t long ago that I was taught that the “Indians” massacred the folks at Mountain Meadows!
So what and where is the cut-off line for what is kosher to question? (I know, that’s another thread…). IOW, is it even possible to question the nature of God (of course it is, cause many of us do…)…AND remain LDS?
So back to the topic (sorry for the long diversion, SS), I think you are absolutely right, SS, to question the literal occurrence, or prophecy, of an apocolypse. Quite a few spiritual traditions predict a major change, or end, of life very soon. I have many friends that are totally planning their life to change in 2012…the Mayan prediction (and others). Some religious historians say that the Christian prophecy is simply borrowed (and edited) from these other traditions. I have no idea whether it is true or not. Too many prophecies have failed for me to bank on it.
So heaven help us if the church leaders listen to me, but I think it would be wise to encourage basic emergency preparedness at all times (food storage, etc), not so much for impending supernatural doom, but for the kind of events we see presently from time to time (earthquakes, fires, hurricanes…). In fact, one of the strong points of the church is the close-knit support system we have. I think it is wise to take advantage of the structure to keep everybody ready for all sorts of life-changing events.
silentstruggle wrote:… the church today still focuses on preparing for the end, rather than choosing to speak out on issues that might be of concern for the long-term, environmental issues and population growth come to mind. My concern is that the short-term view is not in our best interests …
I hear you, but I think the most effective question is “what can I do personally?” In my own view it’s often a waste of time to try to change deep rooted opinions of others — so what can I myself do to promote or assist in a ‘long-term’ global outlook or position of human responsibility?
Like Rix I believe in being a boy scout, but I also want to help to leave a healthy earth to my grandkids (and beyond). I want to do things that I find to be productive – so that mainly includes what I can personally do without counting on a dramatic change in everyone else.
What can I do? I’ll be myself and share my thoughts, encourage education, do my part.
Is there something else that I can do?
I love Apocalypse stuff. In regards to Mormon history, the beginnings of the church certainly placed an emphasis on the 2nd Coming. JS’s letter to a political group that announced his candidacy for President included the phrase, “the end is nigh!”. From reading
Rough Stone Rolling, there are a few different references to prophetic dating of the Apocalypse. First JS claimed it would occur within half a dozen years, next it became 1843, then the quote “more than 40 years will pass before the second coming of the Son of Man.” Finally, missionaries preached of the millennium. There is a great book called
The History of the End of the World. It follows different events and groups in history and their relationship to the Book of Revelation. The end is always nigh. How long before we are no longer called saints of the latterdays? I know my own end is nigh – certainly no more than 40-60 years from now, even if I live to be an OLD man. I want to be ready. That’s really all I take from the apocalyptic stuff – that my world is going to come to an end, and I better be ready for it. I’m fine with that.
I loved Ray’s stage 5 take. I’m not there yet so I see it all as yet another way to use fear as a motivator/coercer of obedience and sacrifice. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that 😳 😆 😳 )I used to love reading “Prophecy, Key to the Future by Crowthers, “The Coming of the Lord’ by Lund, America’s Coming Crisis, by Balmforth, and “Spiritual Survial in the Last Days’ by Yorganson. I even read and saw all the “Left Behind’ movies my evangelical daughter gave me. I used to be quite an insecure person thinking that if I could prepare myself for everything I would not fear so much. Also, I read these books to strengthen my testimony as if all the prohecies came true, then the church was true. Well, I have come to learn that even though we should prepare for emergencies, the whole purpose of faith was not being ‘good’ for the big reward or fear of punishment, but so God could see what is in our hearts. How I live my everyday life matters much more to me now.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.