Talk:Second Coming in Mormonism

Article Title

McConkie Doctrine is not recognized by most branches of Mormonism (and it is somewhat controversial in the LDS Church too), and so this article's title needs to be changed to something like Second Coming (Latter-day Saints). Also additional references & materials need to be provided on this article. -- 12.106.111.10 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism typically refers to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only, not to the RLDS (now Community of Christ), FLDS, or any of the other splinter groups. So I think Second Coming (Mormonism) is a fine title, but if the general consensus says otherwise, change it. Additional references would be good, too. Oh, and I think Mormon Doctrine is an acceptable source. Useight 19:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you might be able to write a NPOV article about what general "Mormonism" thought on the topic of the 2nd Coming might be, including extensive writings by Joseph Smith. I would have to agree that including as the primary source of this article information from the Gospel according to Bruce is a very strong POV bias that simply violates WP:NPOV. Many, many other sources could be included here that could explore this concept in much better depth than what is mentioned here, including LDS General Conference talks, and an extensive discussion could even happen over what other LDS denominations may think about this topic as well. Going to any reasonable LDS-themed bookstore (commonly found in areas with high numbers of LDS believers) will find a dozen titles on this topic. An extensive bibliography could perhaps even get as large as a hundred titles.

For now, this should simply be considered a very stubby article, and perhaps something in dire need of some quality markup tags and other issues at the moment. It also doesn't seem like something any particular Wikipedia editor/contributor wants to spend too much time working on either.

For myself, I think the name change to Second Coming (LDS Church) is unfortunate and done by somebody who is insisting here that others in the LDS movement have no other opinion or thoughts on this idea either. And they are blinded by seeing the McConkie text. I would support a futher renaming to Second Coming (LDS) instead, if there is an insistence upon not using the term Mormonism. Or else simply rename the article back in the first place. This should not be just about the LDS Church's view on this topic, and other related articles for other LDS denominations will likely be merged into this one. Or the other way around. --Robert Horning 13:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The notation -(LDS Church) specifically means the article only applies to the LDS Church, meaning The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Articles with -(Latter Day Saints) means that the article applies to all or most churches in the Latter Day Saint movement. This article is obviously meant to only apply to the LDS Church. Anyone who want to can create a Second Coming (Latter Day Saints) to discuss what most Latter Day Saints believe, or, for instance, a Second Coming (Community of Christ) or a Second Coming (FLDS Church) if they want to discuss the beliefs of a specific church. WP does not use -(Latter-day Saints) as a disambiguation. SESmith 22:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Content changes in "Other Signs preceding the Second Coming"

Current content about "The gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman":

"It is believed that Adam will convene a meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman to officially turn the government of the human family over to Jesus Christ. It is also believed that other patriarchal prophets throughout the Bible will gather there to return keys of their dispensation to Christ. Such an event as this would most likely not be made public knowledge because of the sacredness of the event; thus, fulfillment would be difficult to verify."

I suggest something more along this line: Adam will convene a meeting at Adam-ondi-Ahman to officially turn the government of the human family over to Jesus Christ. All patriarchal prophets from Adam on down (the majority are known from the Bible) will be there to return priesthood keys (of their dispensation and special callings) to Christ....

-=

Current content in "Ten tribes to return":

"According to LDS doctrine, the gathering of Israel is believed to be the gathering of the tribes of Israel into the membership of the church, and not necessarily a gathering into one physical location.[21][22][23] It is believed that the house of Israel was scattered abroad across the earth, and most people on the earth have some lineage from the literal house of Israel. A patriarchal blessing given to faithful members is believed to contain within it the lineage from the house of Israel from which the person is descended. If one is not descended from the literal lineage, it is believed that they are 'grafted' or adopted into the house of Israel when the person is baptized. (Rom. 11:17 KJV)"

Comment: While the gathering is from all over, there is also a distinct body of the ten lost tribes that will return.

Note that even the given sources support a distinct body; here is from the first source:

"The second part of the answer has to do with what happened to the lost tribes. As noted, once they were taken captive by the Assyrians, the historical narrative about them in the Bible comes to an end. However, other sources both scriptural and nonscriptural give limited information regarding their fate. “They seem to have departed from Assyria, … [and] there is abundant evidence that their journey was toward the north. The Lord’s word through Jeremiah promises that the people shall be brought back ‘from the land of the north’ [Jer. 16:15; Jer. 23:8; Jer. 31:8], and a similar declaration has been made through divine revelation in the present dispensation [see D&C 133:26–27]. … “… We find references to the north-bound migration of the Ten Tribes, which they undertook in accordance with a plan to escape the heathen by going to ‘a farther country where never man dwelt, that they might there keep their statutes which they never kept in their own land’ [see 2 Esdras 13:40–45]. The same writer informs us that they journeyed a year and a half into the north country, but he gives us evidence that many remained in the land of their captivity” (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, 12th ed. [1924], 325)."

...But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them” (3 Ne. 17:4).

“And they who are in the north countries shall come in remembrance before the Lord; and their prophets shall hear his voice, and shall no longer stay themselves; and they shall smite the rocks, and the ice shall flow down at their presence. “And an highway shall be cast up in the midst of the great deep. … “And in the barren deserts there shall come forth pools of living water; and the parched ground shall no longer be a thirsty land” (D&C 133:26–27, 29).

From the second source: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say, The Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; “But, The Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land.” (Jer. 23:7–8.)

"...the Other Tribes were to be scattered among many nations, even though a distinct remnant of them clearly would remain in the “land of the north.”

"The keys of the “gathering of Israel from the four parts of the earth, and the leading of the ten tribes from the land of the north” were committed to the Prophet Joseph Smith by Moses on 3 April 1836 in the Kirtland Temple." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.114.199.127 (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I actually think that these changes would be good for the article, and I would vote that you go ahead and change it.

My only concerns would be that I feel that it is important to maintain NPOV, so I feel that it is important to maintain the fact that it is a belief in the beginning of the "The gathering at Adam-ondi-Ahman" section, but thats not critical. I think that your "All patriarchal prophets from Adam on down (the majority are known from the Bible) will be there to return priesthood keys (of their dispensation and special callings) to Christ" is much better than the current version (which I think I wrote).

I also think it's important to use the same wording that the LDS church uses in the info about the gathering. I remember reading once (I thought it was in this article, but maybe it was somewhere else) about someone mentioning that the tribes would return from some unknown, undiscovered or hidden location, however I could not find any references from the LDS church that led to this conclusion. D&C 133:26-27 is the closest thing I could find, and it does not necessarily say that these people are hidden. Other than that all I could find is information that said "the tribes from the north will return", Similar to the way that it is stated in Jer. 23:7-8. According to the LDS Guide to the Scriptures they were carried into Assyria, and lost to the knowledge of others. Lothimos (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Gordon B. Hinckley did not say that the signs in heaven, including the red moon was a fulfilled prophecy. Someone wrote about forest fires. That is not a sign in heaven and there have been forest fires since there where forests. That prophecy is a worldwide prophecy and is not fulfilled. No LDS authority ever said it was a fulfilled prophecy as of June 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.23.163.216 (talk) 09:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The page states that "The prophecy of Joel was declared fulfilled by then President Gordon B. Hinckley." Which is exactly what he stated in the article referenced.([1]). In the fourth paragraph (and part of the following quote) he says, "The vision of Joel has been fulfilled wherein he declared: ... 'And I will shew wonders in the heavens and in the earth, blood, and fire, and pillars of smoke.'"

The page then states, "While some may say that the moon turning to blood can be seen (for example, gazing at it through the smoke of a forest fire will give it a red color), most LDS members do not believe this is a fulfillment of this prophecy yet." This is not attributing the statement to Gordon B. Hinckley, but to "some ... members". It is then directly refuting the idea that a forest fire is fulfillment of prophecy. Dromidaon (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the context of the 2001 Hinkley article, he quotes the whole Joel 2:28–32 passage, and he does not say how verse 30 and 31 are fulfilled; instead the next 3 paragraphs specifically describe how verses 28, 29, and 32 are fulfilled. The content of the talk doesn't provide any support or explanation for verses 30 & 31 being fulfilled, especially not a literal reading of those verses, and that is definitely not a topic anywhere in this talk. It's only gotcha-style, out-of-context quoting that could uses this source as specific support for the "moon into blood", "pillars of smoke", etc... being literally fulfilled, and that's not encyclopedic. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the Civil War isn't mentioned. Section 87 of the Doctrine and Covenants is an explanation from God given to Joseph Smith about the slavery of Africans on the American continent and how it relates to his coming. It is said that "Great calamities shall fall upon the inhabitants of the earth. "

In 1832, War was foretold between the southern and northern states: "Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; And the time will come that war willbe poured out unto all nations beginning at this place. For behold, the southern states shall be divided against the northern states, and the southern states will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain as it is called. ..." D&C 87:1-3

There are more verses which explain how this is tied to the Second Coming. Because of this and others, the Lord has said to stand in holy places until the Second Coming.

Could someone please include this information? Frenchi519 (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

The temple in Jerusalem

Recently, I keep noticing that the Second Coming theology about the temple that is to be built in Jerusalem keeps getting changed to some other temple outside of the LDS religion. Being exceptionally well versed in LDS theology, I understand that the LDS church believes that it is an LDS temple. The LDS people refer to all LDS temples as just temples. They usually don't say, "Hey, look at our LDS temple over there!", or "We need to go to our LDS church today!". They refer to them as just a temple or a church, so I understand that it can cause some confusion as to what an LDS person is referring to. However, using some common sense here, it's easy to see that it would be fairly inane for the LDS church to believe anything other than the return of Christ to an LDS temple. The LDS church believes that it is the one true church on the face of the earth. It believes that the church is led by Christ. It is one of the few temple building religions, believing them and the work done in them to be sacred and the work of God. So why would it make any sense for a religion, believing that they are led by Christ to build temples and do the work within, to believe he will return to someone else's temple?

I have now added two different apostles teaching to the article about the temple that is to be built in Jerusalem confirming this. I fail to see why an apostles teaching from 1877 is less relevant because of the amount of time that has passed. By this logic the bible should be deprecated 2000 times over. If you feel the need to change it to some other temple, let's discuss it first so we can come to a consensus on what the official doctrine of the church is.

Much appreciated. Lothimos (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Inline scriptural references vs. footnotes.

On July 6th, several changes to this article, and while most of the change were beneficial and appreciated, there is one major thing that I felt detracted from the article and I wanted to find out what the rest of the article's audience opinion was.

Prior to the edits, all scriptural references were made in-line, for example: There will appear a great sign in the heaven, and all the people shall see it. (Matt. 24:30 KJV). The current version has them all as foot notes, so that they now display as There will appear a great sign in the heaven, and all the people shall see it.. I find that the article was easier to read with scriptural references as in-line references and other references as foot notes. This made it very easy to understand what was being used from references and what were being used from scriptures. Wikipedia's guidelines says that whatever referencing scheme you us, it just needs to be consistent throughout the article.

My vote is obviously for the old way, and 208.81.184.4 obviously prefers the new way. What are your thoughts about it?

Are there any other edit thoughts we should consider as an audience?

Thanks, Lothimos (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that is July 6, 2011‎ (more than 3 years ago). - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Dubious Ensign Reference

The Ludlow article in the 1972 issue of Ensign says that in 1841 "there were fewer than 5,000 Jewish people in the entire land of Palestine," but this does not mean there were fewer than 5,000 *people* in the entire land of Palestine. Further, 5,000 is a plausible estimate for the numbers of Jews in Jerusalem, given other estimates from the era, but not for the number of Jews in all of Palestine. Artificialintel (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Critical Secondary Sources

What is the real purpose of placing the notice "This Section uncritically uses texts from within a religion or faith system without referring to secondary sources that critically analyze them."? Since this is an article that is clearly and only about one faith's beliefs, why would we not use texts from within that religion or faith system? I'd really love to see a secondary source outside that faith system that understands the faith system better than the faith system itself. TLP (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)