Daniel 2:44 - The LDS church

[Prince_Hal]

The scripture (KJV) says:

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed…”

To whom does “these kings” refer?

Here is why I ask. The LDS church believes that the stone cut out without hands is the LDS church. For many other reasons I do not believe it. However, the church in question would need to be set up in the “days of these kings”. The LDS church was set up in 1830. If the kings in question came before 1830, then the scripture could not be referring to the LDS church.

…unless of course the LDS apologists say that the LDS church was indeed set up during the days of these kings and then lay dormant during the Great Apostasy from 300-ish AD to 1830 AD, only to arise again with Joseph Smith.

Anyway, can anyone assist me in counter arguing that Dan 2:44 refers to the LDS church?

God Bless,

Hal.

 

[Barbkw]

Hal,

From: usccb.org/nab/bible/daniel/daniel2.htm

5 [36-45] The four successive kingdoms in this apocalyptic perspective are the Babylonian (gold), the Median (silver), the Persian (bronze), and the Hellenistic (iron).

The last, after Alexander’s death, was divided among his generals (Daniel 2:41-42).

The two resulting kingdoms, which most affected the Jews, were the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt and that of the Seleucids in Syria, who tried in vain, by war and through intermarriage, to restore the unity of Alexander’s empire (Daniel 2:43).

The stone hewn from the mountain is the messianic kingdom awaited by the Jews (Daniel 2:44-45).

Our Lord made this image personal to himself; cf Luke 20:17-18.

 

[SnakeMauler]

The scripture (KJV) says:

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed…”

To whom does “these kings” refer?

Here is why I ask. The LDS church believes that the stone cut out without hands is the LDS church. For many other reasons I do not believe it. However, the church in question would need to be set up in the “days of these kings”. The LDS church was set up in 1830. If the kings in question came before 1830, then the scripture could not be referring to the LDS church.

…unless of course the LDS apologists say that the LDS church was indeed set up during the days of these kings and then lay dormant during the Great Apostasy from 300-ish AD to 1830 AD, only to arise again with Joseph Smith.

Anyway, can anyone assist me in counter arguing that Dan 2:44 refers to the LDS church?

God Bless,

Hal.

Their logic is unscientific. You don’t have to “counter” anything. It doesn’t refer simply to the LDS church because there has been no notable widespread attribution of the verse to any other group. It’s like how George Bush thinks he made America safe from terrorism by invading Iran and Afghanistan. America isn’t simply “Safe from them” because he invaded. Point out that they believe the Bible is corrupted anyway so they should stop the silliness.

 

[ParkerD]

Hal,
…
Our Lord made this image personal to himself; cf Luke 20:17-18.

Barbkw and Hal,

Or one could find the direct reference that the Savior was using in that Luke passage as well as in Matthew 21:42-44, which is Psalms 118:22-23 as also noted by Peter in his first epistle, instead of using a cross reference that is not applicable. There is another applicable verse, which is Isaiah 28:16. The sure foundation, the Rock, the precious corner stone, is Jesus Christ, but He was a stone of stumbling to the Jews.

 

[Prince_Hal]

Hal,

From: usccb.org/nab/bible/daniel/daniel2.htm

5 [36-45] The four successive kingdoms in this apocalyptic perspective are the Babylonian (gold), the Median (silver), the Persian (bronze), and the Hellenistic (iron).

The last, after Alexander’s death, was divided among his generals (Daniel 2:41-42).

The two resulting kingdoms, which most affected the Jews, were the dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt and that of the Seleucids in Syria, who tried in vain, by war and through intermarriage, to restore the unity of Alexander’s empire (Daniel 2:43).

The stone hewn from the mountain is the messianic kingdom awaited by the Jews (Daniel 2:44-45).

Our Lord made this image personal to himself; cf Luke 20:17-18.

If the Hellenistic kingdom was the last of the four, then this would have ended about 323BC (Alexander’s kingdom). But the scripture says:

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed…”

Then surely this could not refer to the LDS church which came about in 1830? Again, if they claim their’s is the church set up by Christ, then how is the Great Apostasy explained?

Just want to understand.

Hal.

 

[benidict]

The scripture (KJV) says:

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed…”

To whom does “these kings” refer?

Here is why I ask. The LDS church believes that the stone cut out without hands is the LDS church. For many other reasons I do not believe it. However, the church in question would need to be set up in the “days of these kings”. The LDS church was set up in 1830. If the kings in question came before 1830, then the scripture could not be referring to the LDS church.

…unless of course the LDS apologists say that the LDS church was indeed set up during the days of these kings and then lay dormant during the Great Apostasy from 300-ish AD to 1830 AD, only to arise again with Joseph Smith.

Anyway, can anyone assist me in counter arguing that Dan 2:44 refers to the LDS church?

God Bless,

Hal.

you could counter with malichi 1:11. its a little known verse that gives clear indication how the True Church would worship. only one fits the bill, and is worldwide. it gives several distinguishing characteristics of what that Church would be…even a Lutheran friend of mine, who was in the seminary with the missourie synod, without any prompting from me, came to the conclusion that this was talking about the One Holy Catholic, Apostolic Church. i believe he has since converted… very powerful. hope this helps. Peace

 

[Esdra]

you could counter with malichi 1:11. its a little known verse that gives clear indication how the True Church would worship. only one fits the bill, and is worldwide. it gives several distinguishing characteristics of what that Church would be…even a Lutheran friend of mine, who was in the seminary with the missourie synod, without any prompting from me, came to the conclusion that this was talking about the One Holy Catholic, Apostolic Church. i believe he has since converted… very powerful. hope this helps. Peace

Uhm, actually I am not really convinced that Malichi 1:11 refers to the Catholic Church…

Actually similar verses are often to be found in Isaiah and other prophets as well.

And I think this doesn’t refer to the CC in particular, but to Christianity in general…

At least I wouldn’t be convinced with this single verse that the CC, so to speak, is the only true Church…
So actually, I don’t really understand your (former) Lutheran friend…

And, no I haven’t read the verse only in an “evangelical” bible, but also in a Catholic one (the German one called “Einheitsübersetzung”!)

Esdra

 

[KathleenGee]

‘They’ out there always think of the Catholic Church in certain graphic terms.

There will come a man of Perdition…it doesn’t speak anywhere in Scripture about the Catholic Church. Every generation has its wheelbarrow full of the weeds of apostates, heretics, and anti-christs that is dumped empty in every generation, and then filled up again.

We are approaching the second coming of Christ that will be like a small judgment…and what follows is a period of peace where we will resume among Christians to have one faith and one belief dwell in our hearts.

Not all the disputes and invalidations…what would the world be like then? Much, much peace among mankind.

 

[benidict]

Uhm, actually I am not really convinced that Malichi 1:11 refers to the Catholic Church…

Actually similar verses are often to be found in Isaiah and other prophets as well.

And I think this doesn’t refer to the CC in particular, but to Christianity in general…

At least I wouldn’t be convinced with this single verse that the CC, so to speak, is the only true Church…
So actually, I don’t really understand your (former) Lutheran friend…

And, no I haven’t read the verse only in an “evangelical” bible, but also in a Catholic one (the German one called “Einheitsübersetzung”!)

Esdra

actually, he went by more than just this one verse, and so did i. lol! however thsi is in reference to the op asking for help in disproving the LDS claim. what you have brought up though is an excellent idea for a thread, and i shall start it if you would like. we can debate it there. here is the thing with the LDS though, and Malichi 1:11. is it global? no. do they have something akin to a sacrifice of the mass as practiced by the early Christains? no. do they offer to His name a clean oblation? no. these are distinguishing marks of the Church Christ would set up. we can debate wheather this refers to the protestants as well on another thread. see ya there my friend. Peace

 

[Todd520]

I find it intriguing that none have responded to the LDS psoter that did reply to the OP.

 

[benidict]

I find it intriguing that none have responded to the LDS psoter that did reply to the OP.

patience Todd, patience. im sure it will be rewarded and someone is going to do just that. should be interesting to watch. join me? peace to you and yours.

 

[SteveVH]

Uhm, actually I am not really convinced that Malichi 1:11 refers to the Catholic Church…

Actually similar verses are often to be found in Isaiah and other prophets as well.

And I think this doesn’t refer to the CC in particular, but to Christianity in general…

At least I wouldn’t be convinced with this single verse that the CC, so to speak, is the only true Church…
So actually, I don’t really understand your (former) Lutheran friend…

And, no I haven’t read the verse only in an “evangelical” bible, but also in a Catholic one (the German one called “Einheitsübersetzung”!)

Esdra

Since the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church until roughly 500 years ago, I think it is safe to say that the reference is to the Catholic Church. No other existed.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I find it intriguing that none have responded to the LDS psoter that did reply to the OP.

Probably because no one understands the point being made.

Siting Messianic scriptures against themselves and claiming one doesn’t have something to do with the other, is…odd.

 

[campeador]

Probably because no one understands the point being made.

Precisely.

I’d ask for clarification, but that might run a hundred posts.

 

[ParkerD]

Precisely.

I’d ask for clarification, but that might run a hundred posts.

Campeador,

Actually, I think the symbolism of the “stone of the sure testimony of Christ” which will indeed someday fill the earth works for me, so the tie-in with the passages in Luke, Matthew, Isaiah, Psalms, and 1 Peter seems correct and ties to Matthew 16:18 (from the LDS perspective about the testimony of Christ being a sure foundation) also.

Thanks for stimulating a new look at that tie-in, and I apologize for not seeing it sooner.

 

[campeador]

Campeador,

Actually, I think the symbolism of the “stone of the sure testimony of Christ” which will indeed someday fill the earth works for me, so the tie-in with the passages in Luke, Matthew, Isaiah, Psalms, and 1 Peter seems correct and ties to Matthew 16:18 (from the LDS perspective about the testimony of Christ being a sure foundation) also.

Thanks for stimulating a new look at that tie-in, and I apologize for not seeing it sooner.

I’m sorry, but was that meant to be clarification? I’m a little slow so please, maybe you could go into a little more detail.

 

[ParkerD]

I’m sorry, but was that meant to be clarification? I’m a little slow so please, maybe you could go into a little more detail.

Campeador,
I was referring back to post #2. Luke 20:17 is a reference to Psalms 118:22-23.

But I can see how the symbolism in Luke 20:18 can refer to the “stone cut out of the mountains without hands” since that stone does have a symbolism about “breaking in pieces” other kingdoms, and it seems correct that that great stone increases in size as more people gain a sure testimony of Christ.

The stone grows to fill the earth just as it is prophesied that the earth will be “full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the seas”–meaning all people on earth during the Millenium will eventually have a sure testimony of Christ, and Christ “will be king and will be law-giver.”

So I stand corrected from what I had written in post #4, and I sincerely apologize to Barbkw and to any other readers.

 

[Esdra]

actually, he went by more than just this one verse, and so did i. lol! however thsi is in reference to the op asking for help in disproving the LDS claim. what you have brought up though is an excellent idea for a thread, and i shall start it if you would like. we can debate it there. here is the thing with the LDS though, and Malichi 1:11. is it global? no. do they have something akin to a sacrifice of the mass as practiced by the early Christains? no. do they offer to His name a clean oblation? no. these are distinguishing marks of the Church Christ would set up. we can debate wheather this refers to the protestants as well on another thread. see ya there my friend. Peace

Hi

yes, please start a thread with some quotes from this thread here as a context, and if I have time, I’ll happy to join in.

Write a PM with the thread’s name and URL please!

Esdra