Mormons and Revelation (?)

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Nope, I’m not talking about that Continual Revelation thing given by the presidents of
the LDS Church, but I’m wondering how Mormons approach and deal with the BOOK
of Revelation, which talks about Doomsday, the Second Coming of the Jesus Christ,
the Resurrection of the Dead, and the Final Defeat of Satan.

In my mind, it might have been helpful for the Mormons to have retained
(or included, which ever works best) Article of Faith # 11, which reads:We believe in the literal resurrection of the body , and
that the dead in Christ will rise first , and that the rest
of the dead live not again until the thousand years are
expired.

• 11 from** “THE ARTICLES OF FAITH OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS”**​

But even if that article existed in the LDS religion , I can’t see it working in light of
the Mormon Cosmology, Terrestrial Telestial & Celestial Kingdoms/Glories, Kolob,
*Temple Mormons *becoming gods and goddesses ruling over their own worlds and
being able to be with “Heavenly Father” (only them and nobody of ‘lesser glory’)…

I know that Joseph Smith spoke about the Coming of the
Lord, that he knew the time, despite what Matthew 24:36
says, as Oliver Cowdery wrote,President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called,
because God had commanded it…
and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion , with a
determination to lay down their lives , if necessary, should be
ordained to the ministry,and go forth to prune the vineyard for
the last time,or the coming of the Lord,which was nigh - even **
fifty-six years* should wind up the scene. *

• History of the Church 2:182
  That was written in 1835, the Lord was expected to arrive on February 16, 1891,
  OR AT LEAST 18-flippin’-91!!! The nineteenth century passed by, the most inter-
  esting happening in the 1800s, near its end, was the publication of the Oahspe:*
  A New Bible in the Words of Jehovih and his Angel Embassadors*,which actual-
  ly did have an interesting thing or two to say about the Mormons (Es 18:7,8,17).

Now back to my original pondering:HOW do the Mormons approach and deal with the Book of Revelation,
The Revelation of Jesus Christ According to Saint John the Evangelist
at Patmos? How does it fit into Mormonism?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Nope, I’m not talking about that Continual Revelation thing given by the presidents of
the LDS Church, but I’m wondering how Mormons approach and deal with the BOOK
of Revelation, which talks about Doomsday, the Second Coming of the Jesus Christ,
the Resurrection of the Dead, the Beast, and the Final Defeat of Satan.

In my mind, it might have been helpful for the Mormons to have retained
(or included, which ever works best) Article of Faith # 11, which reads:We believe in the literal resurrection of the body , and
that the dead in Christ will rise first , and that the rest
of the dead live not again until the thousand years are
expired.

• 11 from** “THE ARTICLES OF FAITH OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS**”​

But even if that article existed in the LDS religion , I can’t see it working in light of
the Mormon Cosmology, Terrestrial Telestial & Celestial Kingdoms/Glories, Kolob,
*Temple Mormons *becoming gods and goddesses ruling over their own worlds and
being able to be with “Heavenly Father” (only them and nobody of ‘lesser glory’)…

I know that Joseph Smith spoke about the Coming of the
Lord, that he knew the time, despite what Matthew 24:36
says, as Oliver Cowdery wrote,President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called,
because God had commanded it…
and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion , with a
determination to lay down their lives , if necessary, should be
ordained to the ministry,and go forth to prune the vineyard for
the last time,or the coming of the Lord,which was nigh - even **
fifty-six years** should wind up the scene.

• History of the Church 2:182
  That was written in 1835, the Lord was expected to arrive on February 16, 1891,
  OR AT LEAST 18-flippin’-91!!! The nineteenth century passed by, the most inter-
  esting happening in the 1800s, near its end, was the publication of the Oahspe:**
  A New Bible in the Words of Jehovih and his Angel Embassadors,which actual-
  ly did have an interesting thing or two to say about the Mormons (Es 18:7,8,17).

Now back to my original pondering:HOW do the Mormons approach and deal with the Book of Revelation,
The Revelation of Jesus Christ According to Saint John the Evangelist
at Patmos? How does it fit into Mormonism?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Now back to my original pondering:HOW do the Mormons approach and deal with the Book of Revelation,
The Revelation of Jesus Christ According to Saint John the Evangelist
at Patmos? How does it fit into Mormonism?

lds.org/ensign/1975/09/understanding-the-book-of-revelation

 

[Janderich]

…I know that Joseph Smith spoke about the Coming of the
Lord, that he knew the time, despite what Matthew 24:36
says, as Oliver Cowdery wrote,President Smith then stated that the meeting had been called,
because God had commanded it…
and it was the will of God that those who went to Zion , with a
determination to lay down their lives , if necessary, should be
ordained to the ministry,and go forth to prune the vineyard for
the last time,or the coming of the Lord,which was nigh - even **
fifty-six years** should wind up the scene.

• History of the Church 2:182
  That was written in 1835, the Lord was expected to arrive on February 16, 1891,
  OR AT LEAST 18-flippin’-91!!! The nineteenth century passed by, the most inter-
  esting happening in the 1800s, near its end, was the publication of the Oahspe:**
  A New Bible in the Words of Jehovih and his Angel Embassadors,which actual-
  ly did have an interesting thing or two to say about the Mormons (Es 18:7,8,17).

Here are my comments on this subject a few months back…

The coming of the Lord, which is nigh ‑‑ even fifty‑six years should wind up the scene. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, v2, p 182)

On reviewing the details it can be seen what Joseph was almost surely referring to. First, it was February of 1835 when Joseph made the statement, so he was 29 years old. He says 56 years should wind of the scene. Why so specific? Well Joseph provided the details of the revelation he received in D&C 130:14-16 which says,

I was once praying very earnestly to know the time of the coming of the Son of Man, when I heard a voice repeat the following: Joseph my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old, thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter. I was left thus, without being able to decide whether this coming referred to the beginning of the millennium or to some previous appearing, of whether I should die and thus see his face. I believe the coming of the Son of Man will not be any sooner than that time.

As is readily apparent 29+56 puts Joseph at 85 years old. However, the revelation did not state that Christ would come in 56 years. It said Joseph would see the face of the Son of Man if he lived to be 85, which he did not. So, either the person who translated the statement of Joseph was not precise in writing down every word (a common occurrence), or Joseph received a true revelation but did not give it to the people completely at that time.

 

[TexanKnight]

Here are my comments on this subject a few months back…

On reviewing the details it can be seen what Joseph was almost surely referring to. First, it was February of 1835 when Joseph made the statement, so he was 29 years old. He says 56 years should wind of the scene. Why so specific? Well Joseph provided the details of the revelation he received in D&C 130:14-16 which says,

As is readily apparent 29+56 puts Joseph at 85 years old. However, the revelation did not state that Christ would come in 56 years. It said Joseph would see the face of the Son of Man if he lived to be 85, which he did not. So, either the person who translated the statement of Joseph was not precise in writing down every word (a common occurrence), or Joseph received a true revelation but did not give it to the people completely at that time.

nice try…but, as usual, poor apologetics. Taken in context, js was talking about the end of the world.

You make can a book of all the failed revelations of js and the other lds “prophets”…and it would be a large book

 

[iepuras]

lds.org/ensign/1975/09/understanding-the-book-of-revelation

The article posted by RebeccaJ reflects my understanding when I was Mormon. I must say that in all my years in the LDS, we hardly had anything to do with Revelation. I don’t recall anyone ever really addressing or quoting Revelation at length. There are a couple of lessons on Revelation in December every four years in Sunday School. Honestly when the discussion is about the ‘signs of the times’ or the end of the world, we always referenced the Joseph Smith version of Matthew 25. We rarely referenced Revelation. It is almost ignored these days. I need to spend some time studying Revelation now…

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

So, either the person who **translated **the statement of Joseph was not precise in writing down every word (a common occurrence), or Joseph received a true revelation but did not give it to the people completely at that time.

I’m sorry, but did you just say “translated”?
What, was Smith prophesying in a different
language? Reformed Egyptian maybe? huh?!

 

[Old_Ephriam]

As is readily apparent 29+56 puts Joseph at 85 years old. However, the revelation did not state that Christ would come in 56 years.

Your take on the 1891 revelation is at odds with the wide-held belief of late 19th century Mormons who accepted 1890-1891 as the time set for the Second Coming based on this prophecy.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The article posted by RebeccaJ reflects my understanding when I was Mormon. I must say that in all my years in the LDS, we hardly had anything to do with Revelation. I don’t recall anyone ever really addressing or quoting Revelation at length. There are a couple of lessons on Revelation in December every four years in Sunday School. Honestly when the discussion is about the ‘signs of the times’ or the end of the world, we always referenced the Joseph Smith version of Matthew 25. We rarely referenced Revelation. It is almost ignored these days. I need to spend some time studying Revelation now…

I think that is because if you focus on Revelations, too many questions arise as to how it fits into Mormonism, when it doesn’t. Mormon’s focus is on end times, and really have no understanding of Revelations at all.

I recommend two books for studying Revelations. “The Rapture Exposed: The Message Of Hope In The Book Of Revelations” by Barbara R. Rossing and Brazos commentary on the Book of a Revelations. While Rossing’s book addresses the beliefs surrounding the Rapture, which Mormons do not believe, both Evangelicals and Mormons use and understand Revelations in the same way. It is a good book to understanding Revelations as a message of hope, which is what the original author was conveying, rather than doomsday predictions.

The Brazos commentary is very good, theologically sound, and use a good Catholic study Bible.

One thing that non-catholics do not pick up on in Revelations are the tie-ins to the Eucharist.

 

[twopekinguys]

Here are my comments on this subject a few months back…

On reviewing the details it can be seen what Joseph was almost surely referring to. First, it was February of 1835 when Joseph made the statement, so he was 29 years old. He says 56 years should wind of the scene. Why so specific? Well Joseph provided the details of the revelation he received in D&C 130:14-16 which says,

As is readily apparent 29+56 puts Joseph at 85 years old. However, the revelation did not state that Christ would come in 56 years. It said Joseph would see the face of the Son of Man if he lived to be 85, which he did not. So, either the person who translated the statement of Joseph was not precise in writing down every word (a common occurrence), or Joseph received a true revelation but did not give it to the people completely at that time.

And there we have it folks. The ususal mmmm’s.

Misunderstood, Mistranslated, Misinformed, etc. etc.

Another stereotype fulfilled.

 

[iepuras]

I think that is because if you focus on Revelations, too many questions arise as to how it fits into Mormonism, when it doesn’t. Mormon’s focus is on end times, and really have no understanding of Revelations at all.

I recommend two books for studying Revelations. “The Rapture Exposed: The Message Of Hope In The Book Of Revelations” by Barbara R. Rossing and Brazos commentary on the Book of a Revelations. While Rossing’s book addresses the beliefs surrounding the Rapture, which Mormons do not believe, both Evangelicals and Mormons use and understand Revelations in the same way. It is a good book to understanding Revelations as a message of hope, which is what the original author was conveying, rather than doomsday predictions.

The Brazos commentary is very good, theologically sound, and use a good Catholic study Bible.

One thing that non-catholics do not pick up on in Revelations are the tie-ins to the Eucharist.

Thank you! I have the Brazos commentary on my amazon wishlist now.