Many Christians believe that Christ will return to the earth in glory one day (the Second Coming) and usher in a marvelous era known as the Millennium, a thousand-year period when Christ will rule on the earth and Satan will be bound until a brief period at the end of that era. Revelation 20 is one of the key texts on this topic. We read of resurrected righteous people living and reigning with Christ during that era (Rev. 20: 4). Mortal saints are on the earth during this era, with Christ in their midst. Wow, what an amazing time that will be. Think of all that we will learn, all the great mysteries that will be cleared up, all the great insights into life and the universe and the Creation and the things of God and man that will be shared with us as we live with and learn from Christ year after year! Think of how He could bless us just with a few words of wisdom on health care issues such as cancer treatment and prevention–is it too much to think that the Master Healer won’t offer such blessings to us through His knowledge in that time of joy?
I hope such thoughts and dreams do not offend you. I hope you are in the camp that rejoices at such possibilities and would gladly welcome the chance to sit at the feet of Christ and learn from Him. That its, to learn new things from him, with new information and new answers that go beyond our hopelessly limited current understanding. New things that are revealed. Or do you think that Christ will have to pretty much be silent during that era, just smiling at us perhaps but pretty much expecting us to just turn to Genesis when we have questions about the cosmos and the Creation or to Leviticus and Deuteronomy when we have questions about health care? When we are tempted with a desire to know something more, perhaps we will find comfort by pulling out our tattered paperback editions of Dale Crowley’s 1948 volume, The Bible Has All of the Answers. Of course, we’ll always have Wikipedia, if its servers and databases survive the chaos of the end times.
Well, I hope that’s not your view of the Millennium. That would be a far less bright Millennium than the one I believe awaits us. Christ wasn’t silent while serving as a mortal on the earth, He wasn’t silent immediately after His Resurrection when he showed Himself to many believers, He wasn’t silent during his 40-day ministry a short time later (though not a word of all that He taught and revealed is recorded in the records of the Bible). He wasn’t silent when He visited the Book of Mormon peoples in the New World who recorded His words and became further eye-witnesses of Christ, and we proclaim that He is not silent in our day. You may not believe our claims about revelation to modern prophets and peoples in the ancient Americas, but if you believe the Bible, I hope you can envision a Millennium in which the Christ who dwells on the earth is not a silent Christ, but one who can continue to speak and teach and reveal great truths that will bless us throughout that era and beyond.
God, the Ultimate Authority and the Source of all wisdom and knowledge (God, not a static printed volume), has much more to say to us someday, and that means that there are many great and wonderful things yet to be revealed. If you can envision a Millennium in which Christ continues to bless us with teachings and revelations, then perhaps you won’t be so offended at the very idea of any additional revelation, now or in the future, besides what has been assembled and published in the Bible. Perhaps you might even understand a little more why we LDS folks have the following as one of our 13 Articles of Faith (this is the 9th):
We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
Perhaps you will join us in looking forward with joy to receiving more revelation, instead of bristling at the thought and grumbling about “denigrating” the Bible by suggesting it does not contain all the knowledge we could ever need or chanting something about the sin of adding or subtracting from the Word of God. God, of course, is free to speak and reveal more anytime He wants, but we mortals have no authority to change the words of God: that is John’s meaning in Rev. 22:18-19, something Moses already explained in Deut. 4:2, right before he added many more words to his scriptural record. Adding scripture is something God has his prophets do all the time, with no indication that the revealed word would ever permanently end, not in our day and certainly not in the Millennium. Further prophets and added revelation is something that is not only possible but actually prophesied in the Bible (e.g., Rev. 11 has modern prophets prophesying in the last days in Jerusalem; see also Isaiah 2 and Matt 23:34), and is something that Christians should look forward to with joy.
I hope you join me in looking forward to many more great things yet to be revealed! And frankly, I hope we don’t have to wait until the Millennium for some of that. Call me crazy–or call me LDS. Yeah, I know, synonyms….
Truly, the Millennium will be an amazing time of learning and progress. However, I have a couple of inquiries that I'd like your thoughts on.
Regarding how much one-on-one time we will have with the Savior, Joseph Smith taught that Jesus and the resurrected Saints will probably not live on the earth all the time but will visit whenever they please or when necessary to help in the governing of the earth (see TPJS, p. 268)? How does this intermittent interaction with the Divine tie into the teaching that at the end of the thousand years Satan will be set free for a short time and many will turn away from Heavenly Father?
While I agree that the Savior will reveal many truths currently not known to humanity, I cannot be certain that he will teach us doctrine much deeper than what we have now since there will still be a time of trial near the end of the Millennium. Will there be a different standard of judging those who lived during the Millennium (or at least the end thereof)?
Things I'm looking forward to finding out in the Millennium:
1. The lost 116 pages.
2. The LARGE plates of Nephi, the source material for the Book of Mormon.
3. The missing books of the Bible: the books of Nathan, Gad, Zenos, Zenock, and the detailed "Chronicles of the Kings" that is often referred to.
4. Who really shot JFK?
Jeremy,
The book of Revelation and I think Section 76 say that _all_ mysteries will be revealed by the Final Judgement Day. And that is the last day of the Millennium. Hence, _everything_ has to be revealed at some point during the Millennium.
I also don't agree that the release of "deeper doctrine" is in opposition to there being a further trial.
We really don't know any detail about what life will be like during the Millennium, or during that period at the end when Satan will be released for a while. We only have hints or a few bits and pieces of Millennial information.
And the Lord has not revealed the full purpose or all the purposes of that final period of Satan's release. It's not clear to me why that needs to be, or what does or will separate people living in that short time-period from people living out their life in the Millennium prior to that time-period.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Revelation 22:18-19 is one of the most common, tired, worn out, old arguments given against further revelation. It is also a fatally flawed argument, and reflects ignorance on the part of those who quote it to refute the existence of the Book of Mormon or other modern-day scripture. Rev 22:18-19 only applies to the book of Revelation itself. The revelation was written LONG before the Bible was compiled in its current form–it cannot possibly refer to the Bible as a whole. It probably appears last in the canonical listing of books in today's Bible because it was the last of the New Testament books to be accepted into the canon–that's right, it's inclusion in the Biblical canon was in dispute for *centuries* after the disappearance of the apostles and hence the ability to declare with authority what was scripture and what wasn't (see <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Canonical_history>here</a>).
The very saddest part of people rejecting further revelation after the Bible is all the great light, knowledge, and blessings they willfully reject. Like Jeff said, I certainly hope that all the good people of the earth are willing to listen to ALL the Savior has to say when He comes to the earth again, instead of choosing to remain in relative darkness when the sun is shining so brightly around them. And like Jeff, I hope more people will choose to walk in the light today, before the millenium starts!
I'd add one thing to Bookslinger's list: Dinosaurs!
Joseph Smith stated that few will recognize the sign of the Savior's Second Coming, but will think it some kind of natural phenomenon. I expect that the first chunk of the millennium will be spent doing serious missionary work, as was the case after Christ visited the American continent. Recall that although the wicked were destroyed, those who remained still insisted on throwing the missionaries into dens of wild beasts, burying them alive, etc. until all were converted. I wouldn't be surprised to see the millennium get off to the same kind of "slow" start. Why? Because God will force no one to heaven. Those good people who survive the burning will retain their agency and the right to choose their course in life rather than to be compelled by the events of the day.
Don't you find the whole thing a little comic booky?
You know? Ultimate bad, ultimate evil. Good triumph over evil. The wicked and the righteous.
How many people do you really know that are one or the other? The whole thing reads like a fairy tale or children's novel.
The whole book of mormon reminds me of a really long Lord Of The Rings book, except it is not that exciting. I think if you read the BOM more on those terms, you would see how it can not be taken seriously and is more of a joke.
BTW, I don't get it. What is with this whole Missionary effort? How many missionaries are there now compared to 30-40 years ago? I saw some figures that show it is almost the same. How can that be with the Church being the fastest growing religion in the US? If you don't believe that, ask any LDS, they are quick to tell you that fallacy.
Whew, TGIF! Let's all have a great weekend. Outside!
Pops, I'd love a reference to the JS teaching you mention.
Keep in mind that throwing disciples into pits all occurred at the end of the time of peace (4 Nephi 1:27-34), when things started downhill again.
Those who were spared because they were "more righteous" at the beginning (see 3 Nephi 10:12), while still needing a time of warm-up to the full truth (which only took three years, see 4 Nephi 1:2), weren't the type to attempt to murder prophets.
I would expect it will be similar during Christ's millenial reign: a fairly sudden, drastic change that will quickly become a universal change.
Here's the quote from History of the Church 5:337. The occasion was a speech by the Prophet as recorded by Willard Richards. I snagged it from last year's Priesthood manual.
“Judah must return, Jerusalem must be rebuilt, and the temple, and water come out from under the temple, and the waters of the Dead Sea be healed [see Ezekiel 47:1–9]. It will take some time to rebuild the walls of the city and the temple, etc.; and all this must be done before the Son of Man will make His appearance. There will be wars and rumors of wars, signs in the heavens above and on the earth beneath, the sun turned into darkness and the moon to blood, earthquakes in divers places, the seas heaving beyond their bounds; then will appear one grand sign of the Son of Man in heaven. But what will the world do? They will say it is a planet, a comet, etc. But the Son of Man will come as the sign of the coming of the Son of Man, which will be as the light of the morning cometh out of the east [see Joseph Smith—Matthew 1:26].”
I may also be misinterpreting what is being said. Will the world misinterpret the onset of the sign only, or the whole thing? It's hard to tell.
Thanks for the correction on the travails of Christ's disciples in the Americas. I "misremembered" that bit, perhaps because of the close proximity to the conversion of all the people. That's one more thing I can take out of the "what's with that?!?" bucket and discard.
Anonymous,
"Don't you find the whole thing a little comic booky?" Where do you think comic books got the whole "good versus evil" thing in the first place? As for the Book of Mormon being like LOTR; of course the epic themes are somewhat similar but the Book of Mormon only predates LOTR by 100 years (in English). But if you read the Book of Mormon expecting an action/adventure story (which it certainly has) you are missing the point of the book. Just like if you read the Bible only for its stories and not for its doctrines.
As far as missionary numbers, I have no idea if that is true. I know that there were about 60,000 out at a time when I was a missionary 10 years ago and now there are closer to 51,000. It's not always the quantity that counts but the quality.
Jared, I've seen several analyses of the number of missionaries before and after they "raised the bar."
If I remember correctly, the prior group baptized more total converts per year, but I don't think they baptized more converts per missionary. Though I may be wrong on the latter part.
However, if the one analysis I read is correct, and if I'm remembering it correctly, the post-raise-the-bar missionaries are baptizing more people who stay active after 1 year, both in terms of converts per missionary and total number of converts. However, this may also have something to do with other changes in the missionary program such as membership requirements (number of times someone needs to attend sac meeting, etc.) and the fellowshipping of new members.
So in terms of real-growth, those who stay active, the smaller number of missionaries since raise-the-bar went into effect are growing the church more than the prior group.
Prior to raise-the-bar, 15% of the missionaries did nothing, and it took another 15% of the mission force to "babysit" them, so in effect, 30% of missionaries prior to raising the bar were ineffective or essentially unproductive.
By the way, I've decided to not respond to the nattering nabobs of negativism when they post anonymously and won't even choose a consistent handle. It's a hobby for people from a certain anti and ex-mo web site to come here and yank Jeff's (and the readers') chain. I don't think we are obligated to respond to pure snark.
Jared, I just re-read my post, I came off as a bit nasty, sorry about that, I certainly could have worded most of it better.
But, to the point of comic booky, I just think it reads like bad literature. The characters in the BOM are so one sided, and as you know, people are not that way. No normal person is evil, or so righteous. So, it reads like a Lord of the Rings type of book.
Can you name any group/nation/tribe of people today that are pure evil? I can certainly name some groups that I disagree with, but none like are described in the BOM.
As to LDS Missionaries, it is about 50,000 world wide and went up to 60,000 I think at some point but is back down to 50,000 or so. I think it is a good indication of how much the church grows. I remember seeing it was at 50,000 back in the early 80s. Why still at that number?
OK, anyway, be well, and sorry again for some of my word usage.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
@ Anon
I don't think you know what one-sided means as the only character remotely one sided is Nephi and coincidentally that's because everything is written from his point of view. He does show us momentarily though that there are sides we don't read about in his lament. I doubt you'll find to many journals that show a person in a multifaceted light. Now if you meant one-sided as in good and or evil, considering it's the various authors of the books goals to show the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, righteousness and unrighteousness, why would they go over the good points of a bad guy or the bad points of a good guy? In case you didn't know while grays exist and are prevalent all around they are utterly useless for contrast, this is both for color and behavior. Anyone who's purpose is to make a contrast is going to show the blacks and the whites because the grays will only muddy their point and blur the contrast being made. Also you obviously haven't read The Lord of the Rings as the characters presented are very far from Black and white and all of them including some of the, bad guys remain blatantly in the gray, but I digress….. Although its funny that you chose to compare what is universally thought of by critics, professors, writers, scholars etc. As a masterpiece of literary achievement on every scale (aka one of the best pieces of literature written rivaling even Shakespeare) as an example of poor literature. You must not read much.
Z, sorry, could not understand half of what you said. Your run on sentences and bad grammar make it difficult to understand. Sorry, I do not rate Lord of the Rings as a "literary achievement on every scale " LOL But that you do tells me more about you.
I will take my Tolstoy any day over Tolkien. From the little that was comprehensible in your writing, you assume a lot and know very little.
Sounds more like you are having a fit someone dared to criticize the BOM for being boring. Sorry, it is a sleeper.
And FYI, I read the LOTR series sitting on a beach in Bali one wonderful summer. Good books, but reading about good and evil in such black and white terms does not do it for me. I prefer a little more Dostoyevsky in my life than comic book reading, aka the BOM.
@anon – you need to get more into the text and stop relying on memory. [I learned that lesson the hard way in a previous comment.] For example, I just read this morning how Lehi murmured against the Lord, then was chastened and humbled and repented. Sounds pretty human to me. That's just one example.
Bear in mind that the Book of Mormon is largely a "Reader's Digest Condensed Book" that was written for a specific purpose. If you want the full narrative, you'll have to wait along with the rest of us.
Pops, I am going to go back and 'try' to read it again.
Z, "Although its funny that you chose to compare what is universally thought of by critics, professors, writers, scholars etc. As a masterpiece of literary achievement on every scale (aka one of the best pieces of literature written rivaling even Shakespeare) as an example of poor literature. You must not read much."
WOW! Amazing anyone can understand half of that. But I digress, besides making little to no sense You are obviously guilty of what you accuse me of. I said "No normal person is evil, or so righteous. So, it reads like a Lord of the Rings type of book. "
Never once did I say LOTR was poor literature.
Oh the irony of your comment. LOL " YOU must not read much"
@anon 10:57am
*Shakes head in shame at the utter contempt, arrogance, and atrociously vague comments made by this sad poster. I think everyone here would do well to ignore, pity, and pray for him/her.
No need to feed the trolls.
@2:01 AM
What arrogance to assume someone needs your prayers because they think your book is boring.
"atrociously vague comments "
Nothing vague about it, your book is a sleeper. It reads like a bad comic book. What part of that is not clear to you?
Face it, people leave your religion more for that book than for being offended by some rude or ignorant members.
That you think someone is sad because they don't believe in magic, says more about your mental state than anything else.
Here is a hint, people in cults, don't know they are in cults. Everyone on the outside recognizes what it is, but those inside just think it is an elite group of people in possession of some sacred eternal truths.
Well the most obvious answer I would give to anyone leveraging Revelations 22 as being some sort of commandment saying you can't add anything to the Bible is a simple one. One that seems to elude most people making such an argument.
At the time John wrote that, there was no "Bible".
So if a person is happy getting all of their information from the Catholic Church via the Council of Nicea and the Council of Trent, where they, the Roman church decided what books we ought or ought not read, then that's fine.
Of course my next question to them would naturally be, "they why aren't you Catholic". lol
Personally, I think if one wants to consider themselves Christian, then let that person focus on the teachings of Christ, as they appear in the 4 Gospels. That's where the meat of Christianity lies. From a Biblical perspective its the only place where his teachings actually exist. Of course if you're Mormon you can read the same things in the Book of Mormon, with minor additions or clarifications.
But regardless I think focusing on the teachings of Jesus would be the first place for someone wanting to call themselves "Christian" would want to begin.
Get that down, and then let them come talk to me about the mysteries.
Anonymous said…
That you think someone is sad because they don't believe in magic,
You believe in magic too. Of course you probably don't know it. But you do.
You believe that 14.5 billion years ago, a tiny sub atomic particle known as a "quark" or more aptly put, "the Primordial quark" was acted on by some unknown force, superheated and expanded creating all matter in the known universe, including space and time.
Yet you cannot name the force that acted on this sub atomic particle, and you can't identify the action that generated the force. Nor can you name the "stuff" that caused the action that acted on the particle. Nor can you name the process that created the stuff, that created the action that acted on the particle. Nor can you identify….
See how it works?
God, whoever, whatever that may be, left a token for us all if we'd just ask the question, honestly and with a real desire to know. He left a roadmap to the supernatural, right there for anyone who bothers to examine it for a moment. That answer, ultimately leads us to the supernatural, whatever that might be. Whatever it is, its supernatural. Beyond the comprehension of our mortal brains to fathom or even speculate on. That one question dogging all of science since before Lamatra, before Socrates.
Where did it all begin?
You can go back to the Plank Epoch, back to the Big Bang if you like. And perhaps some day we can even go back further.
But we'll never go back, all the way. Without the introduction of the supernatural then there is just no point to which we will ever be able to simply state "it all started here".
Because there will always be a before that. There has to be. And there cannot be. And that's the divine conundrum God left for every person thinking themselves of a scientific mind to ponder.
Because ultimately, the answer is going to lead to something divine, beyond our mortal comprehension. And that's when the idea of God, becomes a scientific one.
WOW, so that which we have not yet discovered is called magic?? I would have to disagree with you on that, but of course, Religion has always called things that could not yet be explained, Magic. Thunder, lightning, earthquakes, floods, All magical and done because of some mood God was in according to Religion. Of course, later when science could explain these things, we no longer blamed it on God. I see you continue to follow in that early tradition though. So, to answer your question, I do see how that works.
Sorry, not being able to name the force that acted on this sub atomic particle does not mean someone believes in magic.
Magic is believing that "Enoch built a city which ascended to heaven with him. Joseph Smith said the City of Enoch was taken up from the Gulf of Mexico leaving only the water, so the land under the city also ascended. That City of Enoch (or Zion) will return to earth in the last days and join with the people in the New Jerusalem yet to be built in Jackson County, Missouri, by Mormons. While the earth is being cleansed or renewed for the millennial reign of Christ, the City of Enoch will be taken off of the earth again along with Old Jerusalem and New Jerusalem."
That is one example of magic. You do believe in that right? ( I prefer to ask what you believe rather than TELL you what you believe, as you just did to me )
That science has not yet been able to name the force that acted on "the Primordial quark" is not magic.
I'm going to guess you can't see the difference though. You seem to take facts and bend them around your conclusions. Which is what religion is good at doing. There is water to drink, therefore there is a God that gave it to us. Not very good science if you ask me. But makes for a great all encompassing belief system.
Revelations 22:18-19 is one of the weakest claims against the Book of Mormon.
The funny thing about Revelations 22:18-22 is that various Christians have used that passage against other Christians simply because their bible version/translation is not the one they use.
I wrote a blog about about this very topic: http://ldsphronistery.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-wars.html
Anonymous said…
WOW, so that which we have not yet discovered is called magic?? I would have to disagree with you on that, but of course, Religion has always called things that could not yet be explained, Magic. Thunder, lightning, earthquakes, floods, All magical and done because of some mood God was in according to Religion. Of course, later when science could explain these things, we no longer blamed it on God. I see you continue to follow in that early tradition though. So, to answer your question, I do see how that works.
Sorry, not being able to name the force that acted on this sub atomic particle does not mean someone believes in magic.
Sure it does. Because I didn't ask you to simply "name the force that acted on the sub atomic particle".
I asked you to identify that, then identify the stuff that created the force, then identify the process that created the stuff, and on down the line.
I asked you a question, …that the human mind can not only not fathom, but cannot even speculate upon.
If you took all the computers in the world and all the scientists in the world, and worked on the question full time for 50 years you could not even begin to speculate as to the answer, …without moving into the realm of the supernatural.
What you call magic.
There is not only no answer to this question, there is no plausible scientific hypothesis to answer it.
So I call it supernatural, you call it magic. But magic it is.
But like most atheists, you'll simply "stop" at one point. You'll never bother to really ask the question, because the answer does not fit neatly with need to dismiss the notion of a deity. You'll simply sit back and do like early flat earthers and declare "its beyond me" and "it doesn't matter".
When you can confront that question, not the pruned question you asked, but the actual question I posed, then you'll be on your way to opening your mind.
Anonymous said…That is one example of magic. You do believe in that right?
Nope.
I neither believe it nor disbelieve it. Don't know. Unlike those of religion who have made up their minds, and unlike the atheists who have made up their minds, I'm of the persuasion of those who actually are able to admit they do not know things that they do not know.
I know no more that that event happened, then I know what force acted on the sub atomic particle to create all matter in the universe, or what reaction that generated that force, or what stuff that caused the reaction, or what process created that stuff, or wha….
Being able to ask questions, I mean really ask questions, and put off our desires to know it all, (or act like we do)is in my humble estimation, the only way to find actual answers.
And with regards to telling you what you believe, I'm just going off what you said. You don't believe in a God.
Fine. No ones asking you to. At least I'm not.
But that leaves you with a Universe, that created itself. That leaves you with sub atomic particles that some force acted on, a force which has no origins. Which cannot be traced back to any source, and with no beginnings. Matter that creates itself. Actions without actors. Energy without reactions.
And that my friend, is as magical as it gets.
J,
The trouble with your blog, http://ldsphronistery.blogspot.com/2010/04/bible-wars.html, is that you constantly refer to the differences between Christians and LDS. What's that all about?