NOM

One of the items that sat on my shelf for a long time before it broke was the idea of two Jerusalems, one in Palestine and one in Missouri, or if you will, the American continent. I was aware that the scriptures in the bible that Joseph Smith and his followers used to support the idea of two Jerusalems were quite clearly misinterpreted. I read that Hebrew poetry involved frequent couplets, and the passages in Isaiah and elsewhere that referred to Jerusalem/Zion twice were talking about one place, not two.
Isaiah 2:3 is the best example. Teachers from Joseph Smith to Hugh Nibley to Legrand Richards would use that verse to justify two Jerusalems, when the most obvious reading indicated a couplet speaking of one Jerusalem/Zion. It seemed likely to me the LDS were misreading that scripture, but did that mean they were uninspired? Well, after my shelf accumulated several hundred other items the answer was obviously yes. LDS were uninspired, a least 50% of the time or more.
It's kind of like a scientist testing a hypothesis and getting frequent conflicting results or negative results? How many negative results does it take to disprove a hypothesis? One? Fifty per cent?

You're correct Deacon.

And they do the same thing with Isaiah 5:26 showing it as a proof scripture for the "Ensign" that will be raised to the nations to gather Israel.

"And he will lift up an ensign to the nations from far, and will hiss unto them from the end of the earth: and, behold, they shall come with speed swiftly....."

But then it states:

"Whose arrows are sharp, and all their bows bent, their horses' hoofs shall be counted like flint, and their wheels like a whirlwind..."

In reality it is just the opposite. The entire chapter is about Israel being taken captive and scattered not gathered. It is an ensign given to the nations (mostly Assyria) to come by horseback and raid Israel and take it captive. The verse has to be read in it's full context to understand it. But when did that ever stop LDS leadership from "wresting" the scriptures?

Used to be that there was a lot of talk about "going back to Missouri". I knew of people who relocated there to get a start on it, but came back west in Idaho after a while when Christ decided it wasn't time to come on back yet. Not much talk about that any more.

A few things: Adam, first baptized, he and his wife Eve and however many other wives he had. First to receive the priesthood. Eve got left out on that one of course. First prophet. The numero onu angel, good helper when it came to making earths and the like. And he also had the special language of course, Adamlish, although God and the angels speak plenty of different languages. Moroni, for example visited Jos Smith several times and spoke English and quoted out of King James bible- the book of Joel no less- that no one ever quotes. But I digress.

Adam + Eve = how the whole man and women on earth thing started. Bless their hearts and all they needed to do is sin.... and, you know... and they did this in Missouri. Such a kwinky-dink huh. First Jos Smith finds the golden plates right next to where he lives in New York and by golly, the garden of Eden was a stone's throw away from where the saints settled in Missouri. And that is Adam-on-da-diamond. Place where it all happened, the fall and all.

Yet, still and all, much has to happen before Christ's return, starting with Jerusalem and the temple that needs to be built there. The church is clear on that part, still. Then and only then can Christ come back and reign in the two places, old and new Jerusalem. I'm not sure that I've heard anything contrary to that doctrine in my lifetime....which is long.

Gatorbait wrote: ↑Thu Feb 24, 2022 10:29 am Used to be that there was a lot of talk about "going back to Missouri". I knew of people who relocated there to get a start on it, but came back west in Idaho after a while when Christ decided it wasn't time to come on back yet. Not much talk about that any more.

Yeah, Zion used to actually mean something. It was that amazing city that Joseph Smith was going to build. Like so many other perfectly good words, modern Mormonism has redefined it for their own purposes of deflection. As far as I can tell, the modern name for Zion is Ensign Peak.